Free will, freedom from what?

[Fairy]

I just point it out. It's there to be seen.

...you reject it because it’s beyond your comprehension…

I reject it because it rejects itself. So should anybody.

If a belief cannot even make itself coherent with itself, then it's obviously a false belief.

But even a false belief is truth, that’s the whole point.

My god I think you’re starting to get it.

From belief to clarity hallelujah Jesus Mary Joseph

[Fairy]

I’ll keep working on you IC

I know it’s hard for you to accept women are just the smarter of the species.

Better not say the man word, you’ll only get all defensive again.

God is female not just a he, ok.

[Immanuel Can]

...you reject it because it’s beyond your comprehension…

I reject it because it rejects itself. So should anybody.

If a belief cannot even make itself coherent with itself, then it's obviously a false belief.

But even a false belief is truth...

Even an up is a down. Even a right is a left. Even the west is the east, and the north is the south. Even a man is a woman, a dog is a cat, and we'll all ride on unicorns to the pixie dances.

I give up.

[Immanuel Can]

I’ll keep working on you IC

Let me know when you start.

[Fairy]

I’ll keep working on you IC

Let me know when you start.

Let me know when you’ve had the last word.

Just remember I am the first and the last. The beginning and the end.

Remember me. . Or have you forgotten me already..lol

It’s me God.

[Fairy]

I reject it because it rejects itself. So should anybody.

If a belief cannot even make itself coherent with itself, then it's obviously a false belief.

But even a false belief is truth...

Even an up is a down. Even a right is a left. Even the west is the east, and the north is the south. Even a man is a woman, a dog is a cat, and we'll all ride on unicorns to the pixie dances.

I give up.

Concepts are fixed, every one, the same one, knows that.

You are confusing the fictional conception, the story, with the actuality that is ultimately this non conceived reality, remember, the immaculate conception?

Stand upside down and notice that what was up is now down. It’s all relative to the observer. There’s no such difference between the observer and the observed, there’s no relation. Except in the dream of conceptual duality.

[Immanuel Can]

I’ll keep working on you IC

Let me know when you start.

Let me know when you’ve had the last word.

About...now.

[Gary Childress]

Here's the more important question: are those beliefs true? And is Hell real?

Unless you want to tell people, "I'll respect you all the way to Hell," then those are the questions you should be asking.

I don't know if they are "true" or "real". Do you know if they are true and real?

I do suppose I know. But I know you don't. So the question really is, "What should a good person do about that?"

I think this: a good person tells the truth, even if the truth is hard to receive. An evil person prefers to pose as "respectful," so that he can preen himself as virtuous while his neighbour burns.

So if you, like me, believed you knew there was not only a real Hell, but also a way to God, would it be "respectful" of you to tell your neighbour there was none of either, and that his disbelief was of no particular consequence? Would it be an admirable thing to stand back and watch him go to Hell, all the while patting yourself on the pack that "at least I'm being respectful"?

Considering that I don't know which religious text has it right, It'd be pretty arrogant of me to tell someone they're going to hell or even that they 'may' go to hell for doing something that they like to do and that doesn't cause much harm. Is shackling people with unjustified guilt a noble deed?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know if they are "true" or "real". Do you know if they are true and real?

I do suppose I know. But I know you don't. So the question really is, "What should a good person do about that?"

I think this: a good person tells the truth, even if the truth is hard to receive. An evil person prefers to pose as "respectful," so that he can preen himself as virtuous while his neighbour burns.

So if you, like me, believed you knew there was not only a real Hell, but also a way to God, would it be "respectful" of you to tell your neighbour there was none of either, and that his disbelief was of no particular consequence? Would it be an admirable thing to stand back and watch him go to Hell, all the while patting yourself on the pack that "at least I'm being respectful"?

Considering that I don't know which religious text has it right, It'd be pretty arrogant of me to tell someone they're going to hell or even that they 'may' go to hell for doing something that they like to do and that doesn't cause much harm.

Hmmm...is "harm" defined by the one doing it, or the one who's receiving the harm? Or is it defined objectively, in some way? I'm always suspicious when people tell me they're "not hurting anyone." I generally find it means they're not thinking hard enough.

But let's accept that you don't know which text is right. The next question is, "Could you know?" And maybe, then, "Should you know?" And then, if you did know, how could you remain silent and let people go to Hell?

Is shackling people with unjustified guilt a noble deed?

No...if it's "unjustified." But if it's justified, and if there is a Hell, then telling that person about their situation is the very kindest action a human being can do to another...bar none.

[Gary Childress]

I do suppose I know. But I know you don't. So the question really is, "What should a good person do about that?"

I think this: a good person tells the truth, even if the truth is hard to receive. An evil person prefers to pose as "respectful," so that he can preen himself as virtuous while his neighbour burns.

So if you, like me, believed you knew there was not only a real Hell, but also a way to God, would it be "respectful" of you to tell your neighbour there was none of either, and that his disbelief was of no particular consequence? Would it be an admirable thing to stand back and watch him go to Hell, all the while patting yourself on the pack that "at least I'm being respectful"?

Considering that I don't know which religious text has it right, It'd be pretty arrogant of me to tell someone they're going to hell or even that they 'may' go to hell for doing something that they like to do and that doesn't cause much harm.

Hmmm...is "harm" defined by the one doing it, or the one who's receiving the harm? Or is it defined objectively, in some way? I'm always suspicious when people tell me they're "not hurting anyone." I generally find it means they're not thinking hard enough.

Life is a messy business. People are always hurting each other's feelings and making others unhappy at times. Sometimes one's gain is another's loss and vice versa. Who should I side with? Who should I say is going to hell and who is not? And what about heaven or going to a better place than this dumpster fire? Is that even a thing for "non-believers".

[Immanuel Can]

Considering that I don't know which religious text has it right, It'd be pretty arrogant of me to tell someone they're going to hell or even that they 'may' go to hell for doing something that they like to do and that doesn't cause much harm.

Hmmm...is "harm" defined by the one doing it, or the one who's receiving the harm? Or is it defined objectively, in some way? I'm always suspicious when people tell me they're "not hurting anyone." I generally find it means they're not thinking hard enough.

Life is a messy business. People are always hurting each other's feelings and making others unhappy at times.

That explains...and excuses...nothing at all. That just makes things worse, not better.

Who should I say is going to hell and who is not?

I would say you should go with what God says about that.

And what about heaven or going to a better place than this dumpster fire? Is that even a thing for "non-believers".

Non-believers wouldn't like that place. It has God in it. And they don't like God. So no place is heaven for them.

[Gary Childress]

Hmmm...is "harm" defined by the one doing it, or the one who's receiving the harm? Or is it defined objectively, in some way? I'm always suspicious when people tell me they're "not hurting anyone." I generally find it means they're not thinking hard enough.

Life is a messy business. People are always hurting each other's feelings and making others unhappy at times.

That explains...and excuses...nothing at all. That just makes things worse, not better.

Who should I say is going to hell and who is not?

I would say you should go with what God says about that.

And what about heaven or going to a better place than this dumpster fire? Is that even a thing for "non-believers".

Non-believers wouldn't like that place. It has God in it. And they don't like God. So no place is heaven for them.

I imagine we're all going to oblivion. That would make more rational sense since there is probably no way the pious of any single one of the world's religions could get along amicably in an afterlife with the pious of any other's.

[Gary Childress]

Seriously, though, IC. Could you imagine being stuck in eternity anywhere, whether "heaven" or "hell"? What would any of us do in all that time that wouldn't get old after the first infinity. It would be beyond boring. It would be more like punishment.

Oblivion is not a bad end. The Buddha had some good sense. Being is suffering and angst. Better to be removed from its burden, than continue indefinitely.

[Immanuel Can]

Life is a messy business. People are always hurting each other's feelings and making others unhappy at times.

That explains...and excuses...nothing at all. That just makes things worse, not better.

Who should I say is going to hell and who is not?

I would say you should go with what God says about that.

And what about heaven or going to a better place than this dumpster fire? Is that even a thing for "non-believers".

Non-believers wouldn't like that place. It has God in it. And they don't like God. So no place is heaven for them.

I imagine we're all going to oblivion. That would make more rational sense since there is probably no way the pious of any single one of the world's religions could get along amicably in an afterlife with the pious of any other's.

And how about the pious Atheists and agnostics, so religious in their antipathy to God, and so devout in their refusal to know? They're not a notoriously tolerant bunch, particularly the former, since they've killed more people than all religions combined, by orders of magnitude. If there's a place for them, do you think it will be heaven?

They'd maybe best pray for oblivion. They've a lot to answer for.

[Gary Childress]

That explains...and excuses...nothing at all. That just makes things worse, not better.

I would say you should go with what God says about that.

Non-believers wouldn't like that place. It has God in it. And they don't like God. So no place is heaven for them.

I imagine we're all going to oblivion. That would make more rational sense since there is probably no way the pious of any single one of the world's religions could get along amicably in an afterlife with the pious of any other's.

And how about the pious Atheists and agnostics, so religious in their antipathy to God, and so devout in their refusal to know? They're not a notoriously tolerant bunch, particularly the former, since they've killed more people than all religions combined, by orders of magnitude. If there's a place for them, do you think it will be heaven?

They'd maybe best pray for oblivion. They've a lot to answer for.

We agnostics have no more to answer for than you do.