Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.

[St.Ricky]

32 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

Disagree.
I reckon there is always a moment of choice... The decision is to be made.. you choose what to do about it depending on, as you say, whether you are convinced or not.

You think that you choose to be convinced? Not that enough "evidence" has been provided to convince you? As I said, choose to be convinced that grass is pink, no matter how hard you try, you still won't believe it.

A simplistic approach to the argument. BEK is correct, IMO, that people are free to make choices when it comes to questions of belief. Evidence takes some people to reaching a conclusion whilst others doubt.. That doubt, however "caused", has some people arrive at a decision to believe that other alternatives are available, including a belief in an ultimate being and an afterlife. Why would I, or anyone else, want to deny them that right? Just because I disagreed with them wouldn't be a good argument. 

[BuddieinEK]

You think that you choose to be convinced? Not that enough "evidence" has been provided to convince you? As I said, choose to be convinced that grass is pink, no matter how hard you try, you still won't believe it.

Yup... All through history, there have been many examples of people choosing to believe one thing in the face of incontrovertible evidence toward another.

The Flat Earth society for one!

If choice is involved even when black and white, then surely also on matters that are up for debate?

[antrin]

Hmmm.  Belief or is it blind ignorance?

if a child wants to keep running across busy roads, I’d probably intervene and gently point out the downsides of doing that.

i think people are compelled to help others not do things that are potentially damaging, destructive or pointless.

it’s not matter of denying them the right to ignore logic in order to believe in dreams and miracles, it’s offering an alternative rational existence that may be more positive.  I see slarti as a missionary, in this sense.  

 

btw, Slartibartfast speaks of the several places humans cannot live in order to knock down Lennox’ thesis that the universe was made for us.

if believers were not so self centred, they could easily say that the universe was made not just for humans, but for all life.  Other forms of life thrive in environments that would kill humans.

indeed we are all also crawling with creatures  - on our skin, in our guts, pervading all our nooks and crannies.  As are all living things.... all of us playing host to millions of others.

but that does not, for me, lend itself to a god theory.

more a concatenation of differing environmental serendipitous events giving rise to varieties of living beings.  Chance.

we humans are just the unlucky ones burdened with trying to uncover a point in all life’s utter pointlessness, when there isn’t any.

instead of accepting that, too many people limply lean on religions.

[BuddieinEK]

 
 
 
 

 They are not convinced by the evidence for a globe, though. On the other hand, they are convinced by the evidence for a flat earth. Just because someone does not believe some bit of evidence, it doesn't mean that they CHOSE to not believe it, it just means that they didn't find it convincing. This applies irrespective of how incontrovertible the evidence is. I really don't know why this isn't blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
 
As I said to Ricky, if you think I'm wrong then pick something, anything, that you currently don't believe and choose to believe it. You can't.
 
If you are presented with new evidence about something then, if you find that evidence convincing, you change your belief about that thing. If, on the other hand, you have an ingrained belief already, that you think can never be wrong, you can easily dismiss any piece of evidence that contradicts it.
 
Whether someone finds a piece of evidence convincing or not can, obviously, depend a lot on the previous knowledge the person has on the subject that the piece of evidence relates to.
 
 
 

Going to have to agree to disagree on this one buddy.

Evidence or not, I still believe there is a moment where we choose to believe it or not, then act in accordance with that choice, using the evidence to back it up.

[St.Ricky]

3 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Going to have to agree to disagree on this one buddy.

Evidence or not, I still believe there is a moment where we choose to believe it or not, then act in accordance with that choice, using the evidence to back it up.

I am in the same camp. I don't think there's merit in further argument. 

I can see why you arrive at the decision you do but also recognise that people do chose to believe, what for you is both illogical and unbelievable and conclude that God exists. That's humans for you. 

Over and out for me on this Slarti. 

 

 

[faraway saint]

I believe I can fly.................

Might not end well. 

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

I am in the same camp. I don't think there's merit in further argument. 

I can see why you arrive at the decision you do but also recognise that people do chose to believe, what for you is both illogical and unbelievable and conclude that God exists. That's humans for you. 

Over and out for me on this Slarti. 

BEK has turned into Slarti, a miracle I tell ya, a miracle, praise the imaginary friend.  

[Cornwall_Saint]

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I believe I can fly.................

Might not end well. 

BEK has turned into Slarti, a miracle I tell ya, a miracle, praise the imaginary friend.  

It’s no a miracle, they are both just aliases of shull 😉

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

It’s no a miracle, they are both just aliases of shull 😉

Start a thread............."The Who's Who of Aliases". 

[BuddieinEK]

It’s no a miracle, they are both just aliases of shull [emoji6]

Too far Cornwall, too far!
[emoji12]

[stlucifer]

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

If you are presented with new evidence about something then, if you find that evidence convincing, you change your belief about that thing. If, on the other hand, you have an ingrained belief already, that you think can never be wrong, you can easily dismiss any piece of evidence that contradicts it.

 

Whether someone finds a piece of evidence convincing or not can, obviously, depend a lot on the previous knowledge the person has on the subject that the piece of evidence relates to.

 

 

 

The bit in bold IS a choice. You would be choosing to believe the evidence is convincing. Others might choose to believe it isn't.

 

ETA. Some people actually choose to believe Boris Johnson. I know. Astounding.

Edited September 7, 2019 by stlucifer

[stlucifer]

2 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

It gives me no pleasure in telling you, some of you are going to hell.

And before you think it will be then that I'll be looking down on you, no I already do standing at 6'6"

It's a strange one this.

Be bad and go to the warm bad fire.

Be good and you go way up high where we know it's bl**dy freezing.

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

I believe I can fly.................

Might not end well. 

BEK has turned into Slarti, a miracle I tell ya, a miracle, praise the imaginary friend.  

Once again you fail to read properly. 

Too much to drink last night?

 

[Cornwall_Saint]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

It's a strange one this.

Be bad and go to the warm bad fire.

Be good and you go way up high where we know it's bl**dy freezing.

Don’t some of the nutters who like blowing themselves up believe they’ll get to have sex with loads of virgins in “heaven?”

f**k that, I want a woman with some experience and who actually knows what she’s doing.

[Cornwall_Saint]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Start a thread............."The Who's Who of Aliases". 

Won’t last long, we are all shull.

[stlucifer]

1 minute ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Don’t some of the nutters who like blowing themselves up believe they’ll get to have sex with loads of virgins in “heaven?”

f**k that, I want a woman with some experience and who actually knows what she’s doing.

They won't be happy if all the lassies "up there" are from Greenock then. That would be a right f'n con!

[antrin]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

It's a strange one this.

Be bad and go to the warm bad fire.

Be good and you go way up high where we know it's bl**dy freezing.

Funnily enough, I just returned from Orkney at 2.00 this morning.

[stlucifer]

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

7 hours ago, stlucifer said:

The bit in bold IS a choice. You would be choosing to believe the evidence is convincing. Others might choose to believe it isn't.
 
ETA. Some people actually choose to believe Boris Johnson. I know. Astounding.

How is finding the evidence convincing a choice? You don't choose to find it convincing, you are either convinced or you aren't.

You may be convinced. Others may not be. That is your choice. It isn't compulsory, so it must be a choice. You decision to believe in the evidence may be right but it may also be wrong. You decide between two options. Believe or don't believe. That Is the very definition of choice. By your reckoning, we may as well almost remove the word choice from the English language.

Edited September 7, 2019 by stlucifer

[Cornwall_Saint]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

6 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Don’t some of the nutters who like blowing themselves up believe they’ll get to have sex with loads of virgins in “heaven?”
f**k that, I want a woman with some experience and who actually knows what she’s doing.

Apparently that only applies to the males, the females get to be with their husbands again - the husbands that now has harems of virgins. It must all be true, cos it comes from an old holy book.

Tbh the females may well be better off. Canny imagine having an endless line of virgin males lining up to stick it in yer vag only to spunk themselves five seconds later.

[oaksoft]

24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

It's a simple dichotomy. You are either convinced or you aren't, there is no other option. It doesn't matter if you are "right" or "wrong" to believe, whether you have understood the evidence or not, the fact is that you have either been convinced or you haven't, and you don't believe something that you haven't been convinced of.

As I've said a few times now, to prove me wrong, all you have to do is pick something, anything, that you do not believe at the moment and, without any change in evidence, choose to believe it. Or you could pick something that you do believe and choose not to believe it. Seriously, try it, and let me know how it goes. It could be anything, the colour of grass, the month of the year, god, your height, the size of your penis, anything.

If you can't do it, why can't you?

You could choose to re-interpret or re-evaluate the evidence, feel you made a mistake in your analysis, come to different conclusions and thus change your mind. People do this all the time.

You are calling this one wrong slarti.

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

No I'm not. If you reevaluate the information then it could convince or unconvince you. You don't choose whether or not to be convinced of something. Reevaluating the information is, if you come to a different conclusion, a change in the "facts" you have.

As I've said (again), choose to believe something that you currently don't and let me know how it goes.

The facts haven't changed though. It's your interpretation that changes. Choose to re-evaluate. Choose to do the very thing you asked us to do. Look at something you believed/didn't believe and choose to do the opposite. All your doing is choosing to substitute a word. If I had your spade I might choose to stop digging.

Edited September 7, 2019 by stlucifer

[BuddieinEK]

It's a simple dichotomy. You are either convinced or you aren't, there is no other option. It doesn't matter if you are "right" or "wrong" to believe, whether you have understood the evidence or not, the fact is that you have either been convinced or you haven't, and you don't believe something that you haven't been convinced of.

As I've said a few times now, to prove me wrong, all you have to do is pick something, anything, that you do not believe at the moment and, without any change in evidence, choose to believe it. Or you could pick something that you do believe and choose not to believe it. Seriously, try it, and let me know how it goes. It could be anything, the colour of grass, the month of the year, god, your height, the size of your penis, anything.

If you can't do it, why can't you?

If it is that simple then why, when faced with the exact same "evidence", are...

Some Jews and some not?
Some Christian and some not?
Some Muslim and some not?
Some Hindu and some not?
etc etc etc

Same evidence for absolutely all!

There simply HAS to be a moment when, presented with evidence, someone says... Ah yes... I choose to believe this to be the truth!

No?

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

No I'm not. If you reevaluate the information then it could convince or unconvince you. You don't choose whether or not to be convinced of something. Reevaluating the information is, if you come to a different conclusion, a change in the "facts" you have.

As I've said (again), choose to believe something that you currently don't and let me know how it goes.

You don't need a change in the facts to come to a different conclusion. You are confusing "facts" and "interpretation" of those facts.

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Evolution is a fact

 

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence. That doesn't make it a fact.

I don't know if you are playing a game of semantics here but you are losing your audience.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

If it is that simple then why, when faced with the exact same "evidence", are...

Some Jews and some not?
Some Christian and some not?
Some Muslim and some not?
Some Hindu and some not?
etc etc etc

Same evidence for absolutely all!

There simply HAS to be a moment when, presented with evidence, someone says... Ah yes... I choose to believe this to be the truth!

No?

You are correct.

There are no certainties in anything.

In real life you are given incomplete information to one degree or another and then have to make a leap of faith and decide which answer the information best describes.

That is as true of science as it is for things like religion.

[BuddieinEK]

No.

For a start, it isn't the same evidence for all. Jesus as the son of god for Christianity, not the others, Mohammed as the last prophet of god for Islam, not the others, and that's just for starters.

Even if it was the same evidence, you are either convinced by it or you aren't. What you conclude by being convinced/unconvinced will be affected by what else you know/believe.

Have you tried to change your belief on anything yet? If it's a simple choice, then it should be easy. It's the easiest way to prove to yourself whether or not you're right about this. If you can't then why not?

Because I choose not to!
Not difficult to understand.