Is there a majority Chinese perspective on afterlife?

[Pravit]

Xuechengfeng, I'm fairly open to the existence of a God. God might or might not exist. But it's interesting to hear your views. Why would God care whether or not his creations believed in him or followed his commands their entire lives(and afterwards)?

PS: Sorry for starting a new page and hiding your page-long reply to Cyberian.

[xuechengfeng]

That's a very good question. I tried to think of something meaningful, but I really don't know because I'm not God and I can't rationalize what His personal feelings would be, except what has been revealed through various religious texts.

I would imagine it's something like being a parent, if I can draw some sort of weak parallel.

[Cyberian]

This isn't the typical civilized discussion I partake in. This is a very juvenile remark.

I admit, it was juvenile. I found it funny each time someone tells me I was given life by the 'Creator'.

I am simply getting annoyed with you because you, like most people, are unable to rationalize two sides of the story. You are the type who is set in their ways, and won't listen to anything;

How well do you know my past, hmm? Perhaps you should not assume things. I once lived a religious life too, and it was not glorious as you put it in this whole topic.

1. WHY should I listen to YOU? Who are YOU? You seem to be damn proud of yourself that I have to listen to you.

2. What two sides? I don't recall you discussing the atheist side. All you been doing is inexperineced atheist this and that.

3. Yes, I have set my way. As opposed to you, who is still searching. What is your point?

this is most visibly demonstrated in your utter disrespect when posting.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Try respecting atheism first, Mr. Holier-than-thou. Show me you are more mature than I. Surely someone like you who is religious will be willing to take the first step.

I don't see how religion is complete opinion. The Bible contains many historical facts. It also goes hand-in-hand with many of the scientific concepts today. Now, you will probably respond that "I said before there was no proof of God." There isn't, there is proof that His Word has been validated in many senses.

1. Opinion.

2. Who decides these 'facts'? Earth was created in 6 days or something? Talking snake? Applecore stuck in throat? Pandora's Box?

Please show me the hand-in-hand with many of the scientific concepts.

3. validate then.

This is why you're wasting my time. You have to be condescending. I tell you to read what he says because it's a well-though out, different perspective, which would actual allow you to weigh both sides of the issues instead of looking at one, and making a conclusion.

1. So I am suppose to read everything everyone throws at my face? I have a free will.

2. There are countless perspective out there. And I had enough to close the doors and decide my believes and disbelieves.

3. You ignorance is limitless. You continue to think all atheists had no religious-teaching in their life. They are inexperienced. They are uneducated. And that you are here to save the 'inexperienced' atheists. Atheists are blank in conclusions.

You speak of the two sides. Try stepping over.

For your information, I was a former Catholic and attended convent school for a while. Lived in a country where Catholicism is the dominant religion. I have converted for a good reasons.

Again, I'm more interested in people seeing two sides of an issue, instead of being blind and then throwing around insults as arguments, like there aren't two sides to every story.

I just told you to go read Karl Marx. You just retaliated by label it as 'blind' and 'insulting'. Bravo! Way to go with the so-called 'two sides' you speak of.

Good, you can find out the conclusion when you die.

Yeah, I think I am starting to believe in Hell. That would be you!

I have a strong dislike for Atheists who are condescending and make juvenile insults disguised as arguments. I also have a strong dislike for those who can't see both sides of the issue.

1. No, you just don't like atheists, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

2. Arguements that you cannot back up.

3. Both sides again. Let me know when you gain some ground.

I don't have a specific religion, at this point. But many religions do approve of being antagonistic towards other religions, and especially unbelievers.

1. Better find one soon or you going to Hell!

2. Religions approving to be antagonistic. Nice to see them getting along. So much for tolerance. License to hate. Also explains why you hate atheists so much.

Essentially, what it proves is certain scientists have done research their whole life dedicated to the subject, and have concluded, in their own minds, that there must be a higher power. They actual have some sort of knowledge, and have weighed both sides of the issue, and made a conscious decision, unlike you.

1. Waiting for higher power to show up. Please summon thy God.

2. Conclusion been reached? So how was Earth formed? How old is it? How long has humans been here? Please tell me how the Earth was and life was created in 6 days and how science can back it up.

3. I like that cheap-shot you took at the end of how you compared unclassed and unnamed scientists with someone over the Internet.

You could follow his example and learn how to weigh the issues. You're very uneducated to the other side, and show an allegiance to your own side, which makes for an utter waste of time talking to you.

1. I am not a follower like you. I decide my own life. I don't follow around other and be governmed by the Bible or be governed by unknown scientists' articles. I do not have the insecurity that you have.

2. Here we go again. The uneducated on my side speech again. Get some ground.

I don't know you, and I surely wouldn't try to force you into something you could be smacked in the face with and still ignore.

Sounds familiar:

- utter disrespect when posting

- throwing around insults as arguments

- juvenile insults disguised as arguments

Moving on...

I only care because it's ridiculous when people are so blind, and stubborn. You care about science, and not religion.

OH, NO!!!! I believe in SCIENCE!

Blind speech again. Stubborn, as opposed to you, who is very flexable with atheists.

I tell you scientists have done research their whole lives and made a religious conclusion, and all of the sudden science and the research isn't important because it's not what you want as a conclusion.

Hey, you know what!!!?

There has been scientists who have done research their whole lives and made a non-religious conclusion too! That is how religion lost ground to politics! I believe Galelio is one of the first few scientists who started it.

Yeah, who cares if they have done research and made a conclusion you don't want to hear?

Hear the above.

Any proof to lead to this conclusion? I need proof, or your conclusion doesn't exist, right?

Got it yet?

Who ever said that you were supposed to see God? You communicate through prayer. This is getting redundant, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN. It is NOT my goal to convert you because I don't even have a specific religion.

1. If there is a 'God', it would be nice to see 'Him'.

2. Good that you stop caring what I believe in.

3. Hope you find your religion soon.

Again, yawwwwwwwwwn. Still at it with me wanting to converting you? Diverting the attention away from your weak arguments? I told you that it can not be backed up by science with 100% certainty. There are many instances that could lead you towards or against a Creator, but unfortunately, you only know the against side, so your arguments are ignorant. You believe in science, so why don't you listen to people who have dedicated their lives to figuring this stuff out? Oh, right, this is because you are one-sided.

1. I do not recall asking you to convert me. Fantasizing me asking you to 'save' me?

2. Science is logic. Believe in it.

3. Here we go again. I only know one side. You know both.

4. The classic insult of me being ignorant.

5. See above. I believe the scientists who scientifically shifted religions' grounds.

6. Another one-sided speech. How tiring I am of getting these empty-attacks.

I'm telling you that scientists can give you proof that can leads you towards the conclusion of a Creator, without 100% certainty. When I say it does not exist, it means there is NOT 100% certainty, which is what you want, so it's useless telling you these things, I suppose [one-sided, again].

Yes, I am begining to think it is one-sided too! Your side is one-sided.

I won't become an Atheist because of Marx because his arguments were weak, and his ideas were horrible. I have read his ideas though with an open-mind and made my decision, something you should learn. I find it funny that these books have been written throughout long periods of time, but you seem to find them to be some sort of works of fiction.

1. If our position were switched. I would be going: You're one-sided, blind, weak, uneducated, ignorant.

2. Yes, long periods of time. It takes a lot of thinking. Which you possibly cannot comprehend. Hey, I am starting to sound like you!

3. Cannot be as fictional as talking snakes in the Bible.

I've told you that it's incomprehensible because you continue to ask silly questions like who created the Creator.

I ask a silly question like "who is the creator of the 'Creator'" because of silly things such as the 'Creator' itself.

I speak from experience around me. Maybe in your world, people think that's sexist, but in mine, they don't.

Congratulations, welcome to the world of opinions. You have made it here.

But it does because a lot of the concepts you deem so silly are backed up by science.

Science is silly. Better trash your computer!

Yes, yes it was.

Hopefully, you will learn to respect women more in the future.

I say you are an inexperienced atheist because you seem to be so caught up on facts, in theory, but you fail to use them in any kind of argument. You are more concerned with my usage of the English language, and making accusations that I'm a sexist. On top of the fact that you ask inexperienced atheist questions like who created the Creator, and I'm sure your next boring question is can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? When I said inexperienced atheist, it refers to your civersions[???], lack of any real kind of arguments for creation, blind position, and the age-old, squashed Atheist questions.

1. If you expect arguements to be kind, you better hurry to heaven. This is not the place. There is always some sort of fire lighting up in arguements.

2. Anything wrong with being caught up with the usage of the English language?

3. I live and grew up in a society where men and women are equal. Women around you probably were condition to be valued less; therefore, they put up with remarks like yours. You are still sexist.

4. Oh, one in question of who created the 'Creator' is an 'inexperienced Atheist'? Or just a sorry, lame, pity, hollow remark aimed at avoid the question because religion have failed to provide an answer? Oh, right! That is how religion lost ground to science. Because they failed to provide answers which science have suceeded in explaining.

5. Oh, by the way. Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?

6. What is a 'civersion'???

7. The only thing lacking is reality in religion.

8. Blind position, age-old, squashed, etc., etc., etc. Come up with better words.

[HashiriKata]

Xuechengfeng & Cyberian,

You both seem to have lost us all with your very long & seemingly confusing posts. What about having a rethink and try again?

xuechengfeng, you're currently wanted here:

http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3974

[Cyberian]

The classic battle between science and religon; evolution and recreation, is always long and confusing. It has been going on since the last half-millenium.

[xuechengfeng]

This is becoming much more a very ignorant battle between us, than the subject at hand. Let me see if I can weed through your last post.

I admit, it was juvenile. I found it funny each time someone tells me I was given life by the 'Creator'.

I originally said I found it ridiculous to think of life without a Creator, which was a result of the evidence I have weighed. You have been stressing personal opinions, and that is mine, and if we argue the subject, I will tell you why I feel that way. That is not trying to tell you that you were given life by the "Creator."

2. What two sides? I don't recall you discussing the atheist side. All you been doing is inexperineced atheist this and that.

The problem is, I've given you some of the things I consider "evidence," yet you seemed to have rejected it immediately, and instead of giving it serious review, just laughed it off and ridiculed it because you are stuck in your way. You've really said nothing to actually show some proof towards your side. You have said that because there is no conclusive evidence on my side, then that proves your side. That could be said for many things.

3. Yes, I have set my way. As opposed to you, who is still searching. What is your point?

My point is it's pretty useless debating because you aren't interested in listening to both sides. Why are we still here? Probably because we both like to argue.

2. Who decides these 'facts'? Earth was created in 6 days or something? Talking snake? Applecore stuck in throat? Pandora's Box?

Read up, man. It's not all stories like that. It also includes many historical stories validated by archaeology and science.

Please show me the hand-in-hand with many of the scientific concepts.

I've told you to read Gerald Schroeder, yet you continuously mock me. If you want to read up on this subject, then I suggest him because he will do it 10,000 times more justice than I.

1. So I am suppose to read everything everyone throws at my face? I have a free will.

No, of course you don't have to, but I feel it's silly to engage anyone in a debate when you aren't open to any new ideas.

2. There are countless perspective out there. And I had enough to close the doors and decide my believes and disbelieves.

Care to explain why?

3. You ignorance is limitless. You continue to think all atheists had no religious-teaching in their life. They are inexperienced. They are uneducated. And that you are here to save the 'inexperienced' atheists. Atheists are blank in conclusions.

I'm talking about you and the way you have argued. If I am generalizing Atheists at all, it is the "inexperienced" ones because they ask questions like yourself. I realize there are many Atheists out there that make good points. It is much more easier to not believe than believe.

I just told you to go read Karl Marx. You just retaliated by label it as 'blind' and 'insulting'. Bravo! Way to go with the so-called 'two sides' you speak of.

No, I was describing you, not Marx. Read back, I said I read his work and I found his arguments weak and horrible, and it wouldn't make me turn towards Atheism. If you actually openly read the other side, and came up with those conclusions, I would still be happy because you viewed two sides.

2. Religions approving to be antagonistic. Nice to see them getting along. So much for tolerance. License to hate. Also explains why you hate atheists so much.

At least this demonstrates that you've never seriously engaged a religious text in your life.

2. Conclusion been reached? So how was Earth formed? How old is it? How long has humans been here? Please tell me how the Earth was and life was created in 6 days and how science can back it up.

Again, read Gerald Schroeder's theory on it. All of the Bible is not to be taken literally.

3. I like that cheap-shot you took at the end of how you compared unclassed and unnamed scientists with someone over the Internet.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

You can read their quotes there.

Sounds familiar:

- utter disrespect when posting

- throwing around insults as arguments

- juvenile insults disguised as arguments

None of that was insulting; that was the truth.

Blind speech again. Stubborn, as opposed to you, who is very flexable with atheists.

How about you give me some sort of reasoning for even being an Atheist or some sort of evidence, and you can see whether or not I'm open. I've stated the only things you've been talking about, which has been a lot of things that aren't really relevant.

There has been scientists who have done research their whole lives and made a non-religious conclusion too! That is how religion lost ground to politics! I believe Galelio is one of the first few scientists who started it.

Point me towards some of them, and don't worry, I won't mock you like you have me when you give me the names of them.

1. I do not recall asking you to convert me. Fantasizing me asking you to 'save' me?

I don't either, but you're acting like I'm trying to. I'm not.

2. Science is logic. Believe in it.

Only when it supports religion, then there is no logic in it.

I ask a silly question like "who is the creator of the 'Creator'" because of silly things such as the 'Creator' itself.

Do you have conclusive evidence there isn't one?

1. If you expect arguements to be kind, you better hurry to heaven. This is not the place. There is always some sort of fire lighting up in arguements.

Arguments do not have to be kind, but it is much more adult-like if they are civil.

3. I live and grew up in a society where men and women are equal. Women around you probably were condition to be valued less; therefore, they put up with remarks like yours. You are still sexist.

It went from what I said "sounds sexist, I didn't say you are sexist," to "you are sexist."

4. Oh, one in question of who created the 'Creator' is an 'inexperienced Atheist'? Or just a sorry, lame, pity, hollow remark aimed at avoid the question because religion have failed to provide an answer? Oh, right! That is how religion lost ground to science. Because they failed to provide answers which science have suceeded in explaining.

I said, it's simple, He is eternal, He needs no creator. Why is it that hard to understand? If you are going to say "who created the Creator," then you are putting yourself in the hypothetical situation which supposes the Creator exists. Now, if this is the case, and this Creator is supposed to be the Creator of every marvel in the universe and on earth, many which can't even begin to be comprehended by the most intelligent humans, why is it so hard to assume that He can just Be?

5. Oh, by the way. Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?

6. What is a 'civersion'???

You're a picky little fellow. The "d" key is near the "c" key. The word of the hour is "diversion."

7. The only thing lacking is reality in religion.

Care to explain why? Have you done that yet in X number of long, long posts?

[Pravit]

The thing is, if I was a parent, even though it would probably require much more time and effort for me to raise one child(as opposed to God creating millions of people without breaking a sweat), I would want my children to figure out for themselves what to do in life, instead of doing what I tell them to until they die. You know? If God does exist, maybe he feels the same way.

[Cyberian]

I originally said I found it ridiculous to think of life without a Creator, which was a result of the evidence I have weighed. You have been stressing personal opinions, and that is mine, and if we argue the subject, I will tell you why I feel that way. That is not trying to tell you that you were given life by the "Creator."

Stressing opinions...

On the last portion of the above, looks like you are stressing my opinion.

The problem is, I've given you some of the things I consider "evidence," yet you seemed to have rejected it immediately, and instead of giving it serious review, just laughed it off and ridiculed it because you are stuck in your way. You've really said nothing to actually show some proof towards your side. You have said that because there is no conclusive evidence on my side, then that proves your side. That could be said for many things.

Why do you think I reject it immediately? You think you are the first to bring me these 'evidence'? You think this is my first time having this debate? You think you are the first to find out what these 'evidence'? Do you think I was born yesterday, and today you are teaching me the other side of things?

My point is it's pretty useless debating because you aren't interested in listening to both sides. Why are we still here? Probably because we both like to argue.

Why are you still here? You tell me it is useless debating with me, yet you rival my long posts. Then you go on the next sentence answering your own question.

By the way, do you not think you should get a religion first before arguing with me? You are not standing on any ground. Someone who is still deciding which religion to choose is arguing with someone standing on firm ground. Lost soldier in the battle field.

Read up, man. It's not all stories like that. It also includes many historical stories validated by archaeology and science.

Lets hear it. When were the dinosaurs created? And when were humans created? How far apart from that 6 days were they created? Please tell me how did the 'Creator' form Earth in 1 day.

I've told you to read Gerald Schroeder, yet you continuously mock me. If you want to read up on this subject, then I suggest him because he will do it 10,000 times more justice than I.

Why don't you tell me to go read Benny Hinn?

No, of course you don't have to, but I feel it's silly to engage anyone in a debate when you aren't open to any new ideas.

Hi! My name is Cyberian. This is my second day on Earth. I was born yesterday! Can you teach me new ideas? I only have 1 day experience.

Care to explain why?

You just asked a question to the answer I have given.

Here it is again: Because there are countless perspective out there. And I had enough to close the doors and decide my believes and disbelieves.

I'm talking about you and the way you have argued. If I am generalizing Atheists at all, it is the "inexperienced" ones because they ask questions like yourself. I realize there are many Atheists out there that make good points. It is much more easier to not believe than believe.

Actually, it is much easier to believe than not believe. That is why they call it 'blind faith'.

Here we go again. 'Inexperienced' atheists. Mr. Holier-than-thou is here to provide 'scientific' articles to those born yesterday.

No, I was describing you, not Marx. Read back, I said I read his work and I found his arguments weak and horrible, and it wouldn't make me turn towards Atheism. If you actually openly read the other side, and came up with those conclusions, I would still be happy because you viewed two sides.

1. No, you were not. You were describing Marx and his ideas. Don't hide your mistakes.

I won't become an Atheist because of Marx because his arguments were weak, and his ideas were horrible.

2. Your definition of someone opening up is not someone who have read it and made a decision that differs from you. But someone who read and got convinced. Everyone who reads what you want and shares your ideas is someone who have opened up. Those who have read and made up their mind to oppose your ideas are not considered 'opened'.

At least this demonstrates that you've never seriously engaged a religious text in your life.

Groundless again. I find it amazing that you can stand on nothing.

Also, your reply does not even apply to my statement. You are getting off the subject. But I will play along.

Your idea of someone not taking it seriously in religion is someone who have become an atheist. Factoring out the possibility of the religion was unable to convince the beliver through wanted answers. Your demonstrations are lousy.

Again, read Gerald Schroeder's theory on it. All of the Bible is not to be taken literally.

When Christians stop being governed by the Bible, I will read Schroeder's theory, okay? That is when Schroeder is gains some ground because he was right. But so far, Christians continue to be governed by the Bible. So I will not waste time on a small fry like Schroeder.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

You can read their quotes there.

Reading...

All of them believes there is a higher power who perfected the condition for our existance. But those are their believes. What does that mean? I have to follow them?

You continue to tell me there are scientists out there who believes 'God' exists. So what? If someone told me alcohol is flammable, I would have to see a demonstration. Which I have, so I believe alcohol is flammable. Can these beliver-scientists show me the 'flame'?

None of that was insulting; that was the truth.

How do you know? You are the one giving it; I am the one receiving it. You enjoy manifesting my emotions don't you?

How about you give me some sort of reasoning for even being an Atheist or some sort of evidence, and you can see whether or not I'm open. I've stated the only things you've been talking about, which has been a lot of things that aren't really relevant.

I do not have to. But I will. Just keep in mind, opinions do not have to be justified. You seem to have a very hard time in understanding that.

a. Because I choose to be; free will.

b. Because religion did not work for me for 6 years.

c. Because it continues to fail to convince me.

d. Because I am not insecure.

e. Etc., etc., etc.

Point me towards some of them, and don't worry, I won't mock you like you have me when you give me the names of them.

Since you like to read, go read the Scientific Revolution and the Englightment.

I don't either, but you're acting like I'm trying to. I'm not.

You sure you are not a wolf in a sheep's clothes?

Only when it supports religion, then there is no logic in it.

...

Do you have conclusive evidence there isn't one?

I don't see it.

Arguments do not have to be kind, but it is much more adult-like if they are civil.

Way to go on backfiring on your on remark on the 'kind arguement'.

Arguements are not meant to be civil either. No arguement is civil.

It went from what I said "sounds sexist, I didn't say you are sexist," to "you are sexist."

Factor in the time frame and change of mind.

At first, I did not take you a sexist for using that remark, and have told you to rephrase them in the future. After you failed to recognize, I concluded you meant to use that sexist remark. I feel sorry for women in your life.

I said, it's simple, He is eternal, He needs no creator. Why is it that hard to understand? If you are going to say "who created the Creator," then you are putting yourself in the hypothetical situation which supposes the Creator exists. Now, if this is the case, and this Creator is supposed to be the Creator of every marvel in the universe and on earth, many which can't even begin to be comprehended by the most intelligent humans, why is it so hard to assume that He can just Be?

How was 'His' eternity proven?

You're a picky little fellow. The "d" key is near the "c" key. The word of the hour is "diversion."

So I am suppose to guess the word of the typo you made whenever you make a typo? What is this, Wheel of Fortune?

My guess was 'conversation', I figure you have fast-typing skills and skipped a few keys and typoed seeing how you rival my long posts.

Plus, I meet people over the Net who think words actually exists, but do not.

Care to explain why? Have you done that yet in X number of long, long posts?

No, I do not care. Neither do I care if you care about me or my opinions. Even if you did care, I would not care to care what you care what I would care or not care of caring.

[xuechengfeng]

Why do you think I reject it immediately? You think you are the first to bring me these 'evidence'? You think this is my first time having this debate? You think you are the first to find out what these 'evidence'? Do you think I was born yesterday, and today you are teaching me the other side of things?

Refute it then. Stop babbling about useless things like my usage of English. You're boring me.

Why are you still here? You tell me it is useless debating with me, yet you rival my long posts. Then you go on the next sentence answering your own question.

Waiting for you to say something relevant to the topic.

By the way, do you not think you should get a religion first before arguing with me? You are not standing on any ground. Someone who is still deciding which religion to choose is arguing with someone standing on firm ground. Lost soldier in the battle field.

Irrelevant. Prove how this is true.

Lets hear it. When were the dinosaurs created? And when were humans created? How far apart from that 6 days were they created? Please tell me how did the 'Creator' form Earth in 1 day.

Like I said, read up. Gerald Schroeder will give you the answers.

Hi! My name is Cyberian. This is my second day on Earth. I was born yesterday! Can you teach me new ideas? I only have 1 day experience.

Let's make a deal, I'll learn some new words if you learn how to became witty when sarcastic.

Here it is again: Because there are countless perspective out there. And I had enough to close the doors and decide my believes and disbelieves.

Then state them, find some ground to stand on.

1. No, you were not. You were describing Marx and his ideas. Don't hide your mistakes.

Have you learned to read yet? You = blind and insulting. Marx's ideas = horrible and weak. Reading is fundamental.

2. Your definition of someone opening up is not someone who have read it and made a decision that differs from you. But someone who read and got convinced. Everyone who reads what you want and shares your ideas is someone who have opened up. Those who have read and made up their mind to oppose your ideas are not considered 'opened'.

No.

Groundless again. I find it amazing that you can stand on nothing.

It's easy to imply when you haven't made one reference to anything relevant.

When Christians stop being governed by the Bible, I will read Schroeder's theory, okay? That is when Schroeder is gains some ground because he was right. But so far, Christians continue to be governed by the Bible. So I will not waste time on a small fry like Schroeder.

Blind?

Reading...

All of them believes there is a higher power who perfected the condition for our existance. But those are their believes. What does that mean? I have to follow them?

You continue to tell me there are scientists out there who believes 'God' exists. So what? If someone told me alcohol is flammable, I would have to see a demonstration. Which I have, so I believe alcohol is flammable. Can these beliver-scientists show me the 'flame'?

Then stop being blind and study their research. They made conclusions on research. Again, learn to read.

a. Because I choose to be; free will.

b. Because religion did not work for me for 6 years.

c. Because it continues to fail to convince me.

d. Because I am not insecure.

e. Etc., etc., etc.

Nice job, just a bunch of general statements with no real reason.

Since you like to read, go read the Scientific Revolution and the Englightment.

Since I'm not blind, OK.

Arguments do not have to be kind, but it is much more adult-like if they are civil.

Maybe among the morons you associate with, but around here, and most places, that's not how debates/arguments go.

How was 'His' eternity proven?

You can't read, this much is conclusive. Let me try to reach through your thick skull.. IF YOU ARE ASKING ME WHO CREATED THE CREATOR, YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION OF THE CREATOR EXISTING. SINCE YOU HAVE SUPPOSED THIS, THEN WHY IS THE THOUGHT OF THE CREATOR BEING ETERNAL THAT HARD TO COMPREHEND?

So I am suppose to guess the word of the typo you made whenever you make a typo? What is this, Wheel of Fortune?

Well, I suppose you really don't understand you are creating diversions from the subject because if I knew I was, I would put that together right away. Or you could just look at your keyboard, since it peaked your interest so much as to ask me what it was.

No, I do not care. Neither do I care if you care about me or my opinions. Even if you did care, I would not care to care what you care what I would care or not care of caring.

[xuechengfeng]

Unless you feel you have some sort of reasoning to apply that would be valid to proving your point, I believe we can call it quits. I had a nice long weekend, but now school starts and I have no time to bicker.

Anybody else with Chinese perspectives on afterlife are welcome.

[Cyberian]

Sorry for replying late. I have been spending a lot of time on experimenting with video conversations. Still have not gotten the results I wanted. But lets put that aside. Then suddenly, I remember how much you will miss me because I have forgotten to check back. So here I am.

Refute it then.

I do not have to refute nor justify my opinions. They solely matter to I. You continue to fail to understand this.

Waiting for you to say something relevant to the topic.

Already did; look back at my first respond. Very relevant. But since this arguement break out, not much is left to say.

Irrelevant. Prove how this is true.

Er... Because you do not have a status.

Like I said, read up. Gerald Schroeder will give you the answers.

Got a documentary video on this nobody? Would be less time-consuming.

Let's make a deal, I'll learn some new words if you learn how to became witty when sarcastic.

Witty enough already. I do not plan to become a comedian. Plus, I got not time to take how-to-be-more-witty classes. I am preparing for co-op next term.

Then state them, find some ground to stand on.

Here it is again: Because there are countless perspective out there. And I had enough to close the doors and decide my believes and disbelieves.

Hence the word 'countless'.

Have you learned to read yet? You = blind and insulting. Marx's ideas = horrible and weak. Reading is fundamental.

Funny how you ask if I learned to read yet, and then reply in equations afterwards. Then again, maybe equations are easier for you to understand.

You = Blind + Insulting

Schroeder = Horrible + Weak

It's easy to imply when you haven't made one reference to anything relevant.

Easy to imply when you have not made one reference to anything you claim of my relevance.

Blind?

My cat is called "Calica".

Then stop being blind and study their research. They made conclusions on research. Again, learn to read.

1. Why does their research apply to me?

2. Why should their conclusions apply to me?

3. Why should I read selected materials from you?

4. Want to join my Leftist group?

5. Did you eat dinner yet?

6. What colour do you think goes well with teal?

7. Who let the dogs out?

8. What is the Matrix?

9. Robitussin!

10. Sorry if I was not following along, I have problems reading.

Nice job, just a bunch of general statements with no real reason.

:roll:

When I have given when you wanted with pure relevance, you have something to say. You label it as 'no real reason' because they are just a 'bunch of general statements'.

Better off if next time you act as if you overlooked my answer and do not reply.

Maybe among the morons you associate with, but around here, and most places, that's not how debates/arguments go.

Is this the new vocabulary you spoke of earlier? 'Moron'? What is wrong? 'Blind' and 'insulting' not working very well, so you had to dig up discriminatory words like 'moron'?

You had little morality over the use of the misogynistic phrase. I am not even going to start with the term 'moron'.

But really makes me ponder what kind of believer you will become.

You can't read, this much is conclusive. Let me try to reach through your thick skull.. IF YOU ARE ASKING ME WHO CREATED THE CREATOR, YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION OF THE CREATOR EXISTING. SINCE YOU HAVE SUPPOSED THIS, THEN WHY IS THE THOUGHT OF THE CREATOR BEING ETERNAL THAT HARD TO COMPREHEND?

Let me know when you rephrase it.

Well, I suppose you really don't understand you are creating diversions from the subject because if I knew I was, I would put that together right away. Or you could just look at your keyboard, since it peaked your interest so much as to ask me what it was.

1. I am not psychic; I do not know which word you are trying to tell me through typos. Maybe your holy powers can, but I cannot.

2. I got better suggestions: Double check your post for mistakes. Be quiet and do not act cocky on your mistakes.

Unless you feel you have some sort of reasoning to apply that would be valid to proving your point, I believe we can call it quits. I had a nice long weekend, but now school starts and I have no time to bicker.

I have plenty of things too. But seeing how willing you are to respond to my long messages, I felt as if I had to say something back.

So long as you have nothing else to say, I have nothing else to respond to.

[tokyo_girl]

I believe we can call it quits.

So long as you have nothing else to say, I have nothing else to respond to.

[HashiriKata]

Step aside, it's my turn now!

I want to donate my body for medical research . I'm sure the abnormalities found in my body will occupy the medical science for years to come!

[GuernseyMatt]

My God (no pun intended)

There is certainly a lot of emotive tosh being bandied about on this string.

many religious paradigms share characteristics with others. Is it not inconcievable that this is because they are borne from the part of mankinds consiousness that knows its flaws and recognises a desire to better itself.

Did man create god in his own image?

[HashiriKata]

Did man create god in his own image?

No, what he created is just a tool, and tools can be misused.

(These are my final words in this thread, I promised! )