(March 5, 2012 at 10:21 am)genkaus Wrote:

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Yes you did quote me but that's besides the point. Let me rephrase it you did quote me in entirety but the problem is your interpretation of what I said.

I take what you say literally and follow it to its logical conclusion.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I don't accept the definition of good you put up there. Good does not equal sinless. You can have sin and still be good. The sin itself is not good but being good does not require perfection. But yes, you are right in saying God or Jesus is the standard for living a good life. This does not mean they are interchangeable. Jesus is as good as you can get, the highest standard possible. This does not mean you need to go that far to be good. An 100% is good but a 94% is still an A thus good.

So, what percentage of "good" is required to get into heaven?

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Your happiness or irrational statement doesn't make sense. Happiness itself is irrational so why are you trying to rationalize it?

A statement I would expect from someone who has given up on rationality.

I have found happiness to be an extremely rational response. When your physical and psychological needs are being met - you are happy. If your psychological needs depend on irrational fairy tales being true, the only way you can be happy is if you let go of your rational faculty.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I am happy that I have a father in heaven who is helping me at all times in my life. I am happy that I'm going to heaven even though I don't deserve it. I'm happy that whenever I get sad or confused I always have someone to turn to. I don't know about you but to me these are very good reasons to be happy.

For something you consider irrational, you've gone to quite some extent trying to rationalize it.

A rational person would prefer to be self-reliant at all times. A rational person would not covet something he does not deserve. A rational person would not rely on fantasy to gain solace or comfort, but on what can provide him objective reasons to do so. A rational person would not depend on his emotions to judge the truth, but his reason. Every statement you make confirms my theory that a religious person can either be rational or happy - but not both.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I did not say stop what you're thinking and do as they say.

If the "commandment" is subject to investigation, then it is not a commandment, but simply advice.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: You can actually think, look, and find a reason for every commandment if it makes you feel better.

And thereby reversing the process of reasoning?

For the process of reasoning to work, you should look, think and then reason out a conclusion according to the facts. Here you start form the conclusion (the commandment) and ask to look for reasons to support it and discard any that do not.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: God has a reason for every commandment, he is not just being arbitrary.

Since he has not given any rational justification and failed to provide any context where these are applicable and where they are not - he is being arbitrary.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Sin causes pain and such and just like a parent needs to say do as I say to their child and they may not understand the reason, so does God.

What your god defines as sin does not necessarily cause pain.

And any parent who says "do as I say" without giving rational justification, is doing a great disservice to the child's rational development.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Living for yourself is a sad way to live. Even atheists have said don't live for yourself, live for others.

"Living for others" is the worst and most corrupt thing one can ask of anyone else. It is an impracticable and self-contradictory ideal, the only purpose of which is to ask some men to sacrifice their lives for the benefit of others (usually the ones touting the slogan).

Anyone who attempts to conscientiously and consistently practice this dictum would find himself mired perpetual cycle of despair and unhappiness. He would be the picture perfect representation of the most pitiful human being alive.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: A good quote from someone I don't remember who said it was "if you aren't willing to die for something, you haven't found a good reason to live."

I have this idea of life I want to live - this ideal to be achieved and for in the process of achieving it, I'm quite willing to die.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I find it more rewarding to give to people than to give to myself. You may think it irrational but gratitude from someone else is very rewarding in itself.

Even as you preach it, you do not practice it. If you truly did practice it, you'd give away all your possessions to charity - anything that is above basic subsistence level. The fact that you are sitting on a computer, preaching, instead of giving away the said computer to to the needy and spending your time doing charity work - tells me that you do not believe your own dictum.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: No, choosing to follow God does not require you to give up rationality or happiness. That's like saying you can't be happy when you are given a car, only when you get it yourself.

Consider it as an inverse function of rationality and happiness. You are happy when your physical and psychological needs are being met. If you are simply getting a car, your physical needs are being met - which makes you happy to an extent. If you get a car when you deserve it, then both needs are being met and you are more happy. If you get it when you don't deserve it, then your psychological needs are being detracted from. You are getting something you are not worthy of - which means your self-worth is not as high as you'd like - that would detract from the overall happiness of getting the car. Now, either you can sacrifice your rationality - and be happy in getting something you don't deserve or you can hang on to it and be less happy than you deserve.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: If you raise a family because God told you so, the rewards are the same as when you make the decision on your own. You cannot take rewards from actions because you followed someone else's advice.

No. The rewards are much greater when the action is undertaken according to one's own rational conviction rather than reliance on someone else. The added reward of acting on your own judgment is your self-esteem and your sense of self-worth.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Sin only works out for those who don't get caught. However, it has many limitations. When someone steals all their money, they find that the money loses value. They realize money doesn't make them happy. Those who lie hurt themselves and others. Hurting does not create happiness. As you said, the thought of them being happy is irrational. I don't know how anyone can convince themselves to be happy when they've truly hurt someone else.

You started off alright but got lost midway. Stolen property does not hold any value to a rational person - that much is correct. It does not hold value because the person realizes that he does not deserve it. For it to hold value, the person must let go of his rationality. That is the extent of the cause and effect. The fact that someone else got hurt in the process is irrelevant.

It is for the same reason that being a Christian, being rational and being happy are not possible together. Being a Christian requires you to accept undeserved salvation - something a rational person cannot do and still remain happy.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: This second to last paragraph is funny. First you say deserving and mercy are contradictions. I completely agree. However I said we are not deserving of his mercy. You may say this is redundant but not contradictory. We haven't taken anything? God has made everything on this earth including us. This earth is imperfect and will perish. God will make a new heaven and a new earth

Putting all the new heaven and new earth bullshit aside - the simple statement is that "you cannot accept something you do not deserve and still remain rational".

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: and if we want to have a part in that we must repent for our sins or disobedience.

I do not recognize his authority to determine what is sin, nor do I recognize his authority to command me.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: He doesn't have to give it to you but he can and he will if you accept Christ as your savior.

Any such acceptance would require you to give up your rational capacity.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: And no, not destroying ourselves is not considered giving back. Spreading the word of God is considered giving back. Doing the plan God has for your personal life is considered giving back.

All these actions require you to substitute your judgment for someone else's - an action any rational person would consider immoral.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: And accepting something by faith is not self destructive. As a kid, you may not understand why your mother says don't talk to strangers but it's not destructive to listen anyway. God wants to protect you, but if you don't listen to him you may hurt yourself and others. This is destructive.

Thankfully, my mother did not choose such destructive ways. She always told me why I shouldn't talk to strangers.

And accepting something on faith is something worse than being physically destructive - it destroys your mental capacity. Any harm caused by a belief based on faulty reasoning is open to correction. Any harm caused by a belief held on faith is not.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I find your last paragraph funny too. First, the bible says all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

Something that I absolutely reject. I do not consider humans to be sinful by default.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Second, in your second paragraph you said you must be without sin to be good. So that means there is not a single person who can be good enough by your own words.

Actually, in my words, everyone is sinless by default.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: This also just so happens to be exactly right. No one can be good enough to go to heaven. You want to know what I believe is the way to heaven? I believe Jesus when he said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." simple as that.

---

You know what I believe - that simply believing that is the worst crime you can commit against your own mind. To believe that the truth and answer on how to live your life is found in the words of a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago - rather that your own rational judgment - is to declare your mind impotent on these matters.

You know the words I live by - "Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be left waiting for us in our graves-or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

Ok you bring up this point a lot so I'll address it with a hypothetical situation. Say you suffered kidney failure and none of your family members are available to go to you and there are no kidneys on the transplant list for you. A stranger to you who happens to be a match donates his to save your life. Can you accept this? Will you be flooded with guilt? Or will you just be extremely great full for this and go about happy to be alive? I personally would pick the last.

(March 5, 2012 at 11:34 am)chipan Wrote:

---

(March 5, 2012 at 10:21 am)genkaus Wrote:

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Yes you did quote me but that's besides the point. Let me rephrase it you did quote me in entirety but the problem is your interpretation of what I said.

I take what you say literally and follow it to its logical conclusion.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I don't accept the definition of good you put up there. Good does not equal sinless. You can have sin and still be good. The sin itself is not good but being good does not require perfection. But yes, you are right in saying God or Jesus is the standard for living a good life. This does not mean they are interchangeable. Jesus is as good as you can get, the highest standard possible. This does not mean you need to go that far to be good. An 100% is good but a 94% is still an A thus good.

So, what percentage of "good" is required to get into heaven?

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Your happiness or irrational statement doesn't make sense. Happiness itself is irrational so why are you trying to rationalize it?

A statement I would expect from someone who has given up on rationality.

I have found happiness to be an extremely rational response. When your physical and psychological needs are being met - you are happy. If your psychological needs depend on irrational fairy tales being true, the only way you can be happy is if you let go of your rational faculty.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I am happy that I have a father in heaven who is helping me at all times in my life. I am happy that I'm going to heaven even though I don't deserve it. I'm happy that whenever I get sad or confused I always have someone to turn to. I don't know about you but to me these are very good reasons to be happy.

For something you consider irrational, you've gone to quite some extent trying to rationalize it.

A rational person would prefer to be self-reliant at all times. A rational person would not covet something he does not deserve. A rational person would not rely on fantasy to gain solace or comfort, but on what can provide him objective reasons to do so. A rational person would not depend on his emotions to judge the truth, but his reason. Every statement you make confirms my theory that a religious person can either be rational or happy - but not both.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I did not say stop what you're thinking and do as they say.

If the "commandment" is subject to investigation, then it is not a commandment, but simply advice.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: You can actually think, look, and find a reason for every commandment if it makes you feel better.

And thereby reversing the process of reasoning?

For the process of reasoning to work, you should look, think and then reason out a conclusion according to the facts. Here you start form the conclusion (the commandment) and ask to look for reasons to support it and discard any that do not.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: God has a reason for every commandment, he is not just being arbitrary.

Since he has not given any rational justification and failed to provide any context where these are applicable and where they are not - he is being arbitrary.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Sin causes pain and such and just like a parent needs to say do as I say to their child and they may not understand the reason, so does God.

What your god defines as sin does not necessarily cause pain.

And any parent who says "do as I say" without giving rational justification, is doing a great disservice to the child's rational development.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Living for yourself is a sad way to live. Even atheists have said don't live for yourself, live for others.

"Living for others" is the worst and most corrupt thing one can ask of anyone else. It is an impracticable and self-contradictory ideal, the only purpose of which is to ask some men to sacrifice their lives for the benefit of others (usually the ones touting the slogan).

Anyone who attempts to conscientiously and consistently practice this dictum would find himself mired perpetual cycle of despair and unhappiness. He would be the picture perfect representation of the most pitiful human being alive.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: A good quote from someone I don't remember who said it was "if you aren't willing to die for something, you haven't found a good reason to live."

I have this idea of life I want to live - this ideal to be achieved and for in the process of achieving it, I'm quite willing to die.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I find it more rewarding to give to people than to give to myself. You may think it irrational but gratitude from someone else is very rewarding in itself.

Even as you preach it, you do not practice it. If you truly did practice it, you'd give away all your possessions to charity - anything that is above basic subsistence level. The fact that you are sitting on a computer, preaching, instead of giving away the said computer to to the needy and spending your time doing charity work - tells me that you do not believe your own dictum.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: No, choosing to follow God does not require you to give up rationality or happiness. That's like saying you can't be happy when you are given a car, only when you get it yourself.

Consider it as an inverse function of rationality and happiness. You are happy when your physical and psychological needs are being met. If you are simply getting a car, your physical needs are being met - which makes you happy to an extent. If you get a car when you deserve it, then both needs are being met and you are more happy. If you get it when you don't deserve it, then your psychological needs are being detracted from. You are getting something you are not worthy of - which means your self-worth is not as high as you'd like - that would detract from the overall happiness of getting the car. Now, either you can sacrifice your rationality - and be happy in getting something you don't deserve or you can hang on to it and be less happy than you deserve.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: If you raise a family because God told you so, the rewards are the same as when you make the decision on your own. You cannot take rewards from actions because you followed someone else's advice.

No. The rewards are much greater when the action is undertaken according to one's own rational conviction rather than reliance on someone else. The added reward of acting on your own judgment is your self-esteem and your sense of self-worth.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Sin only works out for those who don't get caught. However, it has many limitations. When someone steals all their money, they find that the money loses value. They realize money doesn't make them happy. Those who lie hurt themselves and others. Hurting does not create happiness. As you said, the thought of them being happy is irrational. I don't know how anyone can convince themselves to be happy when they've truly hurt someone else.

You started off alright but got lost midway. Stolen property does not hold any value to a rational person - that much is correct. It does not hold value because the person realizes that he does not deserve it. For it to hold value, the person must let go of his rationality. That is the extent of the cause and effect. The fact that someone else got hurt in the process is irrelevant.

It is for the same reason that being a Christian, being rational and being happy are not possible together. Being a Christian requires you to accept undeserved salvation - something a rational person cannot do and still remain happy.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: This second to last paragraph is funny. First you say deserving and mercy are contradictions. I completely agree. However I said we are not deserving of his mercy. You may say this is redundant but not contradictory. We haven't taken anything? God has made everything on this earth including us. This earth is imperfect and will perish. God will make a new heaven and a new earth

Putting all the new heaven and new earth bullshit aside - the simple statement is that "you cannot accept something you do not deserve and still remain rational".

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: and if we want to have a part in that we must repent for our sins or disobedience.

I do not recognize his authority to determine what is sin, nor do I recognize his authority to command me.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: He doesn't have to give it to you but he can and he will if you accept Christ as your savior.

Any such acceptance would require you to give up your rational capacity.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: And no, not destroying ourselves is not considered giving back. Spreading the word of God is considered giving back. Doing the plan God has for your personal life is considered giving back.

All these actions require you to substitute your judgment for someone else's - an action any rational person would consider immoral.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: And accepting something by faith is not self destructive. As a kid, you may not understand why your mother says don't talk to strangers but it's not destructive to listen anyway. God wants to protect you, but if you don't listen to him you may hurt yourself and others. This is destructive.

Thankfully, my mother did not choose such destructive ways. She always told me why I shouldn't talk to strangers.

And accepting something on faith is something worse than being physically destructive - it destroys your mental capacity. Any harm caused by a belief based on faulty reasoning is open to correction. Any harm caused by a belief held on faith is not.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: I find your last paragraph funny too. First, the bible says all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

Something that I absolutely reject. I do not consider humans to be sinful by default.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: Second, in your second paragraph you said you must be without sin to be good. So that means there is not a single person who can be good enough by your own words.

Actually, in my words, everyone is sinless by default.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: This also just so happens to be exactly right. No one can be good enough to go to heaven. You want to know what I believe is the way to heaven? I believe Jesus when he said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." simple as that.

---

You know what I believe - that simply believing that is the worst crime you can commit against your own mind. To believe that the truth and answer on how to live your life is found in the words of a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago - rather that your own rational judgment - is to declare your mind impotent on these matters.

You know the words I live by - "Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be left waiting for us in our graves-or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

Ok you bring up this point a lot so I'll address it with a hypothetical situation. Say you suffered kidney failure and none of your family members are available to go to you and there are no kidneys on the transplant list for you. A stranger to you who happens to be a match donates his to save your life. Can you accept this? Will you be flooded with guilt? Or will you just be extremely great full for this and go about happy to be alive? I personally would pick the last.

---

Chipan, Off topic: when you are quoting big posts its nicer to the eye if you use hide tags e.g. [ hide]<post you're quoting here>[ /hide] (without the spaces I put inside the brackets, look at the example above

(March 5, 2012 at 11:34 am)chipan Wrote: Ok you bring up this point a lot so I'll address it with a hypothetical situation. Say you suffered kidney failure and none of your family members are available to go to you and there are no kidneys on the transplant list for you. A stranger to you who happens to be a match donates his to save your life. Can you accept this? Will you be flooded with guilt? Or will you just be extremely great full for this and go about happy to be alive? I personally would pick the last.

First of all, I would not wait for a stranger to approach me - I would approach one through other channels. I would try for a reciprocal organ donation with another family. I would let it be known through whatever back channels are available that I'm open to the purchase of an organ. If worst came to worst, I'd move to Iran and buy a kidney.

But suppose, before I have a chance to do all that, I'm approached by the stranger. Suppose, as soon as the doctors told me that none of my family members were a match, a guy comes in, says that he overheard everything and offers me his kidney. The first thing I'd do is ask, "Why?". The second thing I'd ask is "What for?".

The best case scenario, the guy asks for money in exchange. Then I'd gladly pay him the amount (if I can) and be grateful to him.

If he says that he wants nothing in return, that he is simply being altruistic, then I'd clearly tell him not to expect anything in return. The fact that he is willing to give up the kidney for nothing means it is worth nothing to him.

The same goes for anyone who expects eternal gratitude (for them or their god) and expect me to change my way of life. In that case, I'd rather die than accept their terms.

Scratch that. In that case, I'd accept their terms, take the kidney and later renege upon it. And then learn to live with my guilt of knowing that I made a wrong choice in accepting the terms I knew were irrational. But atleast I wouldn't sacrifice my rationality, like you apparently would (or did), since I wouldn't lose sight of the nature of my actions.

(March 6, 2012 at 3:25 am)genkaus Wrote: The best case scenario, the guy asks for money in exchange. Then I'd gladly pay him the amount (if I can) and be grateful to him.

If he says that he wants nothing in return, that he is simply being altruistic, then I'd clearly tell him not to expect anything in return. The fact that he is willing to give up the kidney for nothing means it is worth nothing to him.

The same goes for anyone who expects eternal gratitude (for them or their god) and expect me to change my way of life. In that case, I'd rather die than accept their terms.

Scratch that. In that case, I'd accept their terms, take the kidney and later renege upon it. And then learn to live with my guilt of knowing that I made a wrong choice in accepting the terms I knew were irrational. But atleast I wouldn't sacrifice my rationality, like you apparently would (or did), since I wouldn't lose sight of the nature of my actions.

Your rational for that is crap. The fact that this guy is willing to give it for nothing doesn't mean it's worth nothing to him. It means he values your life and wants to be a good samaritan and save your life. Going through surgery is crap and he's willing to go through that for you. He expects nothing in return not because it's not valuable to him, but because puts your life before his kidney. And God gave us salvation to save us from death, all we can do is be happy and live a good life serving him. Not every action is on a weight. Pope John Paul II went to the prison where this guy who tried to assassinate was and told him he forgives him. According to your logic, he was just crazy because there's no way he could forgive someone for trying to kill him for no reason if he was "rational." the fact is he wasn't crazy, just was so in peace with life he had no desire to hold onto anger. People can go out of their way to help someone else without being crazy and someone can accept a gift from a stranger they have done nothing for without feeling guilty.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: Your rational for that is crap. The fact that this guy is willing to give it for nothing doesn't mean it's worth nothing to him.

Whatever he is willing to give his kidney for is the worth of his kidney. If he is willing to give it for nothing in exchange then it is worth exactly that to him - nothing.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: It means he values your life and wants to be a good samaritan and save your life.

So, my life is valuable to him? Why would it be valuable to him if he expects nothing in return from me now or in the future? Value without cause is like currency without commodity to back it up - worthless as the paper it is printed on.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: Going through surgery is crap and he's willing to go through that for you. He expects nothing in return not because it's not valuable to him, but because puts your life before his kidney.

What a depraved and miserable individual he must be if he values himself so little that any passerby may lay a claim on him. He must truly be pitifully miserable if he is willing to risk his life and future health for a stranger with no concrete value in return.

And if he gains some value form the act itself - he must be truly depraved, if he is unable to attain that value without someone else's misery.

The only thing this blight on humanity could truly want is self-destruction and I'd gladly help him in his cause by taking his kidney.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: And God gave us salvation to save us from death,

Except for the fact that Everyone Dies.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: all we can do is be happy and live a good life serving him.

It is only by giving up your rational mind that you can be happy in accepting the undeserved. Which is fortunate for you because serving your god requires exactly that. I hold humans to a higher standard.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: Not every action is on a weight. Pope John Paul II went to the prison where this guy who tried to assassinate was and told him he forgives him. According to your logic, he was just crazy because there's no way he could forgive someone for trying to kill him for no reason if he was "rational."

No, not crazy - irrational. Which is worse. You are not crazy by your own choice, but you can choose to be irrational.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: the fact is he wasn't crazy, just was so in peace with life he had no desire to hold onto anger.

You confuse anger with justice. I can let go of my anger against someone and still withhold forgiveness because he doesn't deserve it. And I can forgive someone and still remain angry at them.

(March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am)chipan Wrote: People can go out of their way to help someone else without being crazy and someone can accept a gift from a stranger they have done nothing for without feeling guilty.

Don't confuse kindness and goodwill with the depravity you are presenting. Helping someone with little cost to yourself and accepting help which costs little is not irrational, nor is it something to feel guilty for. Because of low cost in this case, nothing undeserved is being taken or given. But risking something valuable for something that holds no value to you is degrading the thing that is valuable.

Still babbling on about your favorite human sacrifice Chip, and how we can all be washed in that blood? lol. This is the single-most disgusting part of christianity, to me. Vicarious redemption is absolute evil trotted out as the greatest of virtues. The "greatest story ever told" is a horror story, even if you ignore all the rest of it, and only focus on this one thing. If I am to be redeemed, perhaps I should deserve it, it's not as though it is impossible for me to be a decent human being. Maybe having such a childish excuse to do evil isn't the best idea christians ever came up with eh? Also...

Evidence?

Rhythm Wrote:The "greatest story ever told" is a horror story,

I always read that as "The greatest bullshit Story ever SOLD" to the gullible masses

Indeed, and there is never a shortage of salesmen is there? Notice that Chip is unable to even attempt a point except by reference to what can be demonstrably shown to exist, IE kidneys, etc. One of these things is not like the others.

@genkaus
Obviously you aren't going to see my point because you do not understand the concept of selflessness. Take a few psychology classes and just maybe you can learn about it. And btw, when I said God saves us from death I should have clarified I meant eternal death which is the second death. Of course you don't believe in that but one step at a time. Take some psychology classes to understand selflessness. Until you understand that concept, you and I will not be able to see eye to eye on this issue.

Do you have any evidence that we die (ultimately and finally) more than once? Do you have any evidence that you have attended a psychology class, or that your appraisal of "selflessness" is accurate?