Heaven and Hell

[Peregrine]

And yes, before you say anything, I'm ignoring half of your nonsense. You're completely missing the point of my arguments, and I'm not going to bother arguing against your various strawmen.

 

Are you honestly this emotionally damaged? ONE CONVERSATION with my grandparents would have priceless value. If you say otherwise about someone you claim to love, you don't love them.

We, anyone who has faith, can talk to his or her grandparents or other desceased. You only fail to get that, like you fail to get the point of religion.

 

Prove it. Prove that you have two-way conversations with the dead. It should be quite easy to prove experimentally, by quoting some independently verifiable information that the dead person would know, but the living would not.

 

Oh guess what, this proof has never appeared. Not even the most devout faithful have ever been able to prove this in a controlled experiment.

 

I don't know how we would experience it. But I do know that no matter how much time you spend hanging around the real world, you miss nothing in heaven. You just don't understand the concept of INFINITY. To put this in mortal terms, imagine blinking an extra time before leaving to go do something you enjoy. To a person in heaven, spending an entire human lifetime on earth would be infinitely shorter.

Well, I'm going to expereince it. You won't. You can't say how it is in Heaven, since you don't believe in it. If you really think so about religion, there are three options for you (based upon beliefs of different religions)

 

I am quoting from the religious faithful's own words. They state very clearly that heaven is eternal. That you don't understand the inevitable consequences of that fact is your problem, not mine.

[Karasuman]

"Well, I'm going to expereince it. You won't. You can't say how it is in Heaven, since you don't believe in it. If you really think so about religion, there are three options for you (based upon beliefs of different religions)"

 

First, I thought direct reference to religious beliefs and the descriptions thereof, were banned. As such, you seem to be the one breaking the rules of this debate more than anybody here.

 

Second, if you're going to bring that up, then I ask one thing: Based upon those beliefs, who the hell are you to tell someone else where they're headed as though you possess some omnipotence on the subject? And who are you to judge yourself? According to your apparent beliefs, there is one entity that knows for sure where you're headed, and that entity isn't you. Noone is sitting here passing religious judgment on you, thus it'd be nice if you'd refrain from doing that yourself.

[Povuholo]

Every person has a negative or positive value. Although you can't mesure it, ---- Positive values often get more paranormal effects. Negative ones, like you, will not.

I'll repeat what Peregrine said here: Where's the evidence? Assuming that you can be visited by dead relatives in your dreams: How do you know that the person with a high positive value (a strong believer) will have a higher chance or is more likely to be visited in his dreams by dead relatives than those with a lower value?

Was there a scientific experiment involving a group of people which had everything from the strongest believer to the strongest atheist, where they looked at who had been visited by dead relatives in their dreams (more often)? I don't think so.

We, anyone who has faith, can talk to his or her grandparents or other desceased. You only fail to get that, like you fail to get the point of religion.

You're saying that anyone who has faith can talk to his deceased relatives if he or they want to. Let's say someone wants to talk to his grandparents and those grandparents certainly would like to talk to him. Both the grandparents and this guy are strong believers. According to you they should be able to talk to each other then in one of his dreams. Where's the proof that he can? If it had been proven that you can talk to dead relatives if you are a strong believer, a lot more people would be religious. But it hasn't been.

 

Also this is rather strange:

 

You: It has been proven that ghost are to weak to stay in this world for long

 

Peregrine: Proven? You have got to be kidding. Please post links to credible scientific studies "proving" that ghosts even exist, never mind proving some difference between demonic ghosts and normal ghosts.

 

You: Hundreds of scientist try to disprove the existence of ghost, but they can't.

 

Just because it can't be proven that ghosts don't exist, doesn't automatically mean that they do exist.

But more importantly you ignored Peregrine's main question there: Where's the proof? You said it was proven that ghosts are too weak to stay in this world for long, as well as that there are two types of ghosts: demonic and normal. Instead of answering that you changed the subject to whether or not ghosts could exist.

 

Also, If it has been proven that ghosts are too weak to stay in this world for long and that there are different types of ghosts, it must also have been proven that ghosts exist.

[Karasuman]

"But more importantly you ignored Peregrine's main question there: Where's the proof?"

 

He can't answer that because no such proof exists. If it did, everyone would've heard it by now, instead of a bunch of smokescreens.

[elpiggo]

"But more importantly you ignored Peregrine's main question there: Where's the proof?"

 

He can't answer that because no such proof exists. If it did, everyone would've heard it by now, instead of a bunch of smokescreens.

Exactly. So until you have proof, stop going on about it.

[Peregrine]

Every person has a negative or positive value. Although you can't mesure it, ---- Positive values often get more paranormal effects. Negative ones, like you, will not.

I'll repeat what Peregrine said here: Where's the evidence? Assuming that you can be visited by dead relatives in your dreams: How do you know that the person with a high positive value (a strong believer) will have a higher chance or is more likely to be visited in his dreams by dead relatives than those with a lower value?

Was there a scientific experiment involving a group of people which had everything from the strongest believer to the strongest atheist, where they looked at who had been visited by dead relatives in their dreams (more often)? I don't think so.

 

You know, in discarding the whole thing as flawed for other reasons, I missed a very important point here. Thanks for catching my attention.

 

 

Fritz: If you can't measure this value, how the hell can you know that a positive one gets more paranormal effects? You are clearly just making stuff up.

[FritzDerochebrune]

I'm not breaking the rules. This is a topic about Heaven and hell. If you can't use religion, Septim could have better named it 'find as many reasons as possible why my dream couldn't be Heaven and hell.'

 

You require scientific reasons to believe things? That's the same as saying "If my nose falls of without scientific reason I won't believe it."

 

But I realized we've been using Septim's topic for a debate as old as mankind itself. Religion, is it true or not. Septim used this thread to ask for advice, not to evoce a debate. I admit I was wrong in replying to Peregrin's taunt towards my dream, if he will admit he shouldn't have taunted me at the first place, as he did in his post on the 9th august. Neither side will be likely to give in to the other. I on one side will not give up my faith, as the primary rule of religion is to believe even without scientific proof. Peregrin and all the others on his side won't agree until science proofs something. I figured it will only be a matter of time this thread will be closed for our debate, the same one that has been banned from the debate-section. As I don't want to get a strike, nor wish that anyone else gets one,

I decided to offer this 'deal':

 

I will admit science never proved anything spiritual, if you admit science can't disprove it either.

 

That way I can remain religious, you can oppose it as you want, and we can clash at other threads in the real debate-section as much as we want.

 

Do you accept this offer?

 

Cya

 

Fritz

[The Hippie]

its not what the dreams mean that matter its what you take them to mean you can dismiss them as nothing or try to learn about yourself from them; what they actually mean to others is nothing as they did not expeirence the dream so in regards to your question i would have to say neither i feel that its actually a representation of your inner self but whatever man interpret it as you wish that just my 2 cents

 

 

ps. peregrine feel free to tear my ideas apart in doing so you might learn about your self, and i might learn from you

[Karasuman]

"You require scientific reasons to believe things? That's the same as saying "If my nose falls of without scientific reason I won't believe it.""

 

It's not really a matter of whether scientific reason is necessary to believe something, though in some peoples' case, yes, they do require scientific evidence to believe it.

 

It probably has more to do with the fact that you were making some really left-field statements, and then saying there was proof that existed to verify them. When asked for this evidence, you balked and instead took the stance of "science can't disprove my theory, therefore it must be valid." Just because science can't disprove a given theory doesn't make what you were saying any more rational.

[Peregrine]

You require scientific reasons to believe things? That's the same as saying "If my nose falls of without scientific reason I won't believe it."

 

If you actually knew anything about science, you would realize how stupid this sounds. Of course I wouldn't believe my nose had fallen off without scientific reason. However, assuming that it did fall off and it was not just a product of my imagination, finding that scientific reason should be a matter of a moment's observation. A nose-less face and a nose sitting on the ground are scientific evidence.

 

But I realized we've been using Septim's topic for a debate as old as mankind itself. Religion, is it true or not. Septim used this thread to ask for advice, not to evoce a debate. I admit I was wrong in replying to Peregrin's taunt towards my dream, if he will admit he shouldn't have taunted me at the first place, as he did in his post on the 9th august.

 

I see, so any disagreement is a "taunt"?

 

And I admit no such thing. I stand by my arguments, and apologize for nothing. It's not my fault if your ego can't handle any disagreement with your beliefs.

 

Neither side will be likely to give in to the other. I on one side will not give up my faith, as the primary rule of religion is to believe even without scientific proof. Peregrin and all the others on his side won't agree until science proofs something.

 

No, that's the primary rule of stubbornness and ignorance. By saying this, you state that even if your beliefs are factually incorrect (not just lacking in evidence), you would rather lie to yourself than admit that you were wrong. The fact that you (and countless others) can't see this is a source of endless annoyance to me.

 

But this isn't the primary rule of religion. Just take a look at the concept of miracles. If evidence was not required, why do people put so much emphasis on miracles? Why should a miracle strengthen your belief? After all, you have stated very clearly that physical evidence is irrelevant to your beliefs. The answer is of course that you want to have it both ways, you want the "scientific" arguments in favor of your religion, but not the ones against it.

 

And of course I won't agree with you until scientific proof is provided. Any rational person would say the same thing. Fortunately for your side, providing this proof should be easy. If an interventionist (as opposed to the hands-off deist type) god actually exists, it would leave plenty of physical evidence in its interactions with the world. If this god of yours exists, provide the proof.

I figured it will only be a matter of time this thread will be closed for our debate, the same one that has been banned from the debate-section. As I don't want to get a strike, nor wish that anyone else gets one,

I decided to offer this 'deal':

 

I will admit science never proved anything spiritual, if you admit science can't disprove it either.

 

That way I can remain religious, you can oppose it as you want, and we can clash at other threads in the real debate-section as much as we want.

 

Do you accept this offer?

 

**** no.

 

No deal. I will not agree to any deal that grants your arguments any form of legitimacy. The only deal I will agree to is that you post your concession that every claim you have made about ghosts, supernatural entities, etc, is completely lacking in evidence, and an apology for your poor debating tactics and presenting those claims as if they were solid fact.

 

All this "deal" does is turn this into a victory for you, and allow you to dodge the responsibility of justifying your claims.