Cornelius

Are you willing to entertain the thought experiment? As an Atheist by what objective moral standard do you obtain and maintain the characterization of Monster?

So you are unwilling to answer the question and resort to mockery? Certainly you are able to entertain a mere thought experiment?

If you reject God in this life wouldn't God be tyrannical if he didn't respect your wishes in the afterlife and forced you to be with him?

1. You have not defined "true" 2. You actually made the initial claim that God did not speak through a burning bush. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide evidence of your claims. If you cannot that is fine but nobody is under any obligation to disprove your claims.

Probably be able to get what you want from Powerpoint. If not send me a message and I might be able to help you out.

Over the many years in which I have participated and moderated this forum I have seen many people evolve and change their beliefs considerably, myself included. Which I believe is natural and even expected. So I decided to open a topic to discuss this and feel free to answer all or none of these questions. They are more a guideline to illustrate what the topic is about rather than a questionnaire. What do you do when your beliefs seem to change over time? Do you cling to your previous beliefs? What if your current worldview or belief system no longer reflects your current beliefs? Do you update or change the system at all? How do you feel about those who have previously held strong beliefs but have changed over time (not talking in a flaky manner such as overnight multiple times a month or so)? If you have or had a strong belief system but you find it no longer suits you do you rough it out and for how long? Do you feel that others who return to previously held worldviews or systems are insincere? Basically I'm wondering how you personally evaluate these things and your views on yourself and/or others. Some people for instance may see returning to a system as going backwards while others may acknowledge that it isn't exactly a linear progression and it is perfectly fine to revisit previous beliefs.

In norse mythology Hel is the land of the dead and in literary form a goddess/giantess who is the personification of the underworld. In the Eddas it talks about Nastrond "Corpse shore" where those such as oathbreakers and murderers die a second death and enter Nifhel into Nastrond, that is place of pure torture. It is a hall made of Serpents that drip venom down that forms streams. Where those who have died the second death wade in agony and get torn apart by wolves as their corpses are eaten by a dragon/wyrm that is probably Nidhogg. A hall she saw standing remote from the sun on Dead Body Shore. Its door looks north. There fell drops of venom in through the roof vent. That hall is woven of serpents’ spines. She saw there wading onerous streams men perjured and wolfish murderers and the one who seduces another’s close-trusted wife. There Malice Striker sucked corpses of the dead, the wolf tore men. Do you still seek to know? And what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Náströnd Wicked people getting there due in the afterlife is not just a Christian concept.

I'm saying we can't know how those actions will carry forward and instead of focusing on a future we will not be a part of we should focus on the here and now.

He always seemed to be a good fellow. Sorry to hear it Connie.

Not a problem Connie.

Atheists and Agnostics: All Agnostics are Atheists. Agnosticism is about what can be known. Atheism is about belief. Agnostics do not actively believe in nor worship any deities, therefore they are Atheists. Neither are mutually exclusive. Brights: I actually have no knowledge of this label. Free Thinkers: I've never understood how people can honestly state that a religious person can't be a "free thinker." It's a rather insulting premise imo. Pantheists: Interesting concept and position but I don't see much activity from them. Secularists: Another term that isn't mutually exclusive in regards to the religious. Although I often see it used that way. I think for pluralistic societies secularism is necessary. Humanists, Secular Humanists, Spiritual Humanists: Humanists are humanists I guess. For every label more labels will arise. Objectivists, , Apatheists, Nones, No Preference, Etc: Do all these different labels have much in common besides what they are not, in contrast to what they are?

We can't know what will live on after us and for how long. We have our deeds now. How we conduct ourselves in the present is much more important than a future we will not participate in. If we do what is right the legacy will take care of itself.

Was coming here to make a Happy Birthday Murph thread. Hope you have aa great one Murph. You deserve it.

If you were to poll people who know me in person outside of this forum you would get varied responses along the line of the nicest.., the kindest..., most caring, just a big teddy bear, charitable, reliable, giving, etc.. At least that is what I have been told and witnessed. I've often had the feeling that if you asked people who only know me from online posts those would not be the reviews I would be getting. I often find people attributing emotions and motivations to my words that don't exist. Interpersonal communication in this format is severely limited and we are discussing what can be sensitive topics for some people. They are also discussions you generally wouldn't have in mixed company. I try to keep that in mind but I often feel I fail. I come off much better in person and am known to be quite charming I swear! We must also take into account that a message board is designed for the purpose of having certain discussions that we normally wouldn't pursue so vigorously in person in order to keep the peace. It is called a forum after all. So it would stand to reason that you know what you are signing up for and what level of discourse is going to be present beforehand and prepare yourself for cognitive dissonance and disagreement. As for off the forum if I'm taking the time to discuss or argue a point with you it means I respect your intelligence and think you can handle simple disagreement. If I'm teasing you and picking on you I probably like you and consider you a friend of some sort.

His passion and understanding knew no limits.

Safe to be said.

It seems like we are agreeing yet debating at the same time... Am I not being clear enough?

Very true. For clarification I wasn't stating people are incapable of going from non- belief to belief and vice versa or that it is rare. For the context of that statement reference my earlier sentences in which I said "Unfortunately these things rely on experiential knowledge and cannot be reproduced in a lab. So by scientific standards that can never really be "proven" unless a new technology occurs that allows us to catalogue and observe them in repeatable instances.." Sounds experiential. A worldview shift is unlikely to occur with a conversation. It can happen but that conversation will most likely have surrounding experiences that make the person receptive to that conversation.

Unfortunately these things rely on experiential knowledge and cannot be reproduced in a lab. So by scientific standards that can never really be "proven" unless a new technology occurs that allows us to catalogue and observe them in repeatable instances. Therefore it is a matter of belief and if you don't believe you most likely won't and if you do then you most likely can't see how others do not. We see in the world that which we desire to see.

Religious freedom at its finest.! Congrats to you and Andre. Thank you for providing this forum Kevin. It has had a big impact on my life.

Genesis 11:27-32

In my belief system the gods "meddle" as it were. There is also a concept of fate but not predestination. However, our future (which we don't necessarily believe exists) is decided by our actions, those of our ancestors, as well as most likely every sentient being's actions culminating in the Web of Wyrd. So yes it can be said we have free will because it is up to us to create our fate in a way. There are just things that are owed because of past actions. Cause and effect if you will. Not all world views use the same model as the abrahamic ones.

Howdy Dan How have you been? I know you like to distance yourself from the RCC but have you ever considered if it wasn't for the RCC and its spreading of Christianity over Europe and the world in a large part by force including the crusades and inquisition that you yourself would not be a Christian today?

Thank you for sharing. I have some questions but not the time atm. I will make a follower up post.