Do you believe in the afterlife?

[mahhum12]

if you go to heaven it will be a garden of paradise where everybody is young and is the same age and there will be beautiful valleys and streams and everything will be like an eternal dream

[SurveyMack10]

Your statement that I am lying about the information being present or not present in the post is false.

Your "lie" was in stating that, if I did not reproduce the challenges, they didn't exist.

My point is that it is absolutely impossible for me to read your mind and know what “challenges” you are referring to.

There is no need for any mind-reading since the challenges made to your unsubstantiated claims were explicit, not implicit.  I even used the words like 'unsubstantiated' to indicate which unsupported claims of yours were being challenged.

The assumption that they are nonexistent is made by your obvious inability to reproduce these challenges.

On the contrary, I do have the ability to do so however, not the inclination to do your reseaarch for you.  Your assumption that these challenges are "nonexistent" because you won't go look for them is illogical.

Your continuing evasion of this request shows lack of evidence ...

No, it shows that I won't do your research for you - not that the evidence is lacking.  The docomented evidence exists in the two threads we've been participating in recently.  Your repeated evasions in answering challenges to your unsupported claims strongly suggest that reproducing those evasions would be unproductive, (not that the evidence is lacking; merely that you have shown a propensity for denying such evidence, even in the form of your own quoted words).

Your attempt at sounding superior by defining an “unsupported opinion” has been duly noted. It actually shows that you are NOT superior ...

You've brought this notion of 'superiority' up several times now and it must be pointed out that your faulty perceptions, (or, incipient sense of 'inferiorty'), constitute more unsupported opinion.  Defining an unsupported opinion does not confer superiority.

I did not claim that previous posts were impossible to reproduce, rather that UNANSWERED CHALLENGES were impossible to reproduce. ]/quote]

No, they are not.  If evasions immediately followed the challenges, then that can be shown in an unaltered post.

If these unanswered challenges do exist you will reproduce in your response

I refuse to procreate during an oline discussion.  That would be rude and disrespectful of my partner, (not you).  Thanks for reposting your 'demand' in a demanding manner as this supports my previous contention.

It is true that I have repeated myself in this debate. That is not anything I am denying.

That's the endless loop mentioned previously and you did deny engaging in endless loops.

You are the actual one who is operating in an endless loop.

The irony and your hypocrisy there are sublime.

Your accusation of me denying my own words is absolutely false. Please provide evidence for this empty accusation.

Your denials are in your own words, not mine.  If you cannot recall what you wrote, go find it yourself and stop trying to get me to be your unpaid secretary.

Your insult to my intelligence has been ignored as an immature insult that does not deserve a response.

No conclusive evidence of your intellience has yet been presented.  If you have some to present now, please do so.

Weeks are made up of days, so if a conversation has been going on for weeks it has also been going on for days.

Yes, and years are made up of days too however, it isn't common usage to refer to 3 years as 1095 days instead.

You claim that “likely false” is an opinion is absolutely true. I never claimed it as fact so I am not sure why you felt the need to state it was an opinion, but good job observing the difference between opinion and fact.

You stated your opinion as if to imply it's truthful accuracy, (unless you were instead intentionally stating a false opinion in order to deceive).  My observations of the difference between an unsupported opinion and "fact" contrast with your general lack of being able to discern such differences.

Your claim that I do not remember what I wrote is false. I DO remember what I wrote ...

If you remember what you wrote then you are implicitly claiming that your replies answered the challenges made to your previous unsupported claims or, that you do remember not answering those challenges and are now engaged in this endless request loop of yours.

 

This is not a “terroristic demand”, merely a request.
It is likely that I will not respond to much more of the content you post until you reproduce the challenges you claim. 

Now, that emphasizes the difference, (even in analogy), between making a terrorist demand and making a 'threat'.  Mackenzie does make the demand, (it's right there, above my reply, in her own words), but doesn't view it as a demand.  The 'threat', (which isn't much of one), is that she'll "not respond to much" unless her demands, ("until you reproduce the challenges"), are met.  This does not form a very enticing incentive.

-Reproducing  these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.
-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful. Glad we could clear up that confusion.
-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.
-I am sorry you feel the need to be petty, but the point of me stating that we had been talking for days was merely that enough time had passed that I do not remember word for word every post that has been made. Also, it has only been in the last few days that we have been responding so frequently as in the beginning I would only respond every few days. I am sorry you feel the need to dwell on this subject as it really has no bearing on any aspect of the debate we are having.
-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want. Despite your longing to be able to decide what people can or cannot hold as their own opinions, you do not have that power.
-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.

[falcon9]

-Reproducing  these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.

False.  You made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made.  No evidence of this was provided.  My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges.  Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).  Since you did evade, weasel and come up with diversionary tangents before there is a strong likelihood of you doing so again if I took the trouble, You Won't Take, to repost each of those challenges which you initially claimed to have
"answered".  In fact, this whole 'reproduce the challenges' loop of yours is, itself, an evasion on your part of the challenge to support your initial claim of answering previous challenges.

-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful.

That's merely another of your lies since your comments have not been "respectful" to any degree, (these disrespectful comments of yours, in your
own words, are also available in these threads).  It wouldn't be going out on a limb to estimate that you'd likely deny that your disrespectful comments were disrespectful, (seeing how you have a vested interest in such a biased 'opinion' of your own comments).  As far as the possibility that you feel inferior goes; nominally, those who whine about others being "superior" in their empty opinions usually use that word because they do feel inferior, (which is entirely the problem of the one who feels that way, no matter if they deny it or not).

-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.

No, I made a counter-claim _after_  you made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made.  No evidence of this was provided.  My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges.  Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).

-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want.

Indeed, you are "entitled" to hold empty/baseless/unsupported opinions or, opinions that have some veracity or rational basis for that matter.  There is a difference between a baseless/unsupported opinion and an opinion which has a legitimate basis/evidentiary support.  Yours was an unsupported opinion, (which seems to be your preference), and I indicated that to distinguish it from an opinion with a foundational basis.

-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.

The burden of proof rests with the one who made the initial claim to have answered all previous challenges, (that's Mackenzie).  It does not rest with an opponent who challenges the initial claimant's initial claim by requesting evidence to support that claim, (the challenger isn't required to produce evidence to support the claimant's claim; the claimant - Mackenzie - has that burden of proof).  Characterizing my challenges as making a claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto a secondary claim when you made the initial claim, (and thus, have the initial burden of proof).  This sort of dishonest tactic is the same as someone demanding that their opponent "prove Santa doesn't exist" instead of supporting their initial claim that Santa exists _first_.

  As an aside, I do concur that it is a waste of time 'arguing' with someone like you who blithely makes unsupported claims, attempts to shift the burden of proof when those claims are challenged, lies about this, lies about lying about this, submits diversionary tangents in lieu of responding to context and dissembles with such a degree of hypocrisy so as to make a Republican blush - that would be you, Mackenzie.  The evidence of each of those 'claims' awaits your discovery in these threads.  Naturally, you have no incentive to find this evidence, (or evidence of those unanswered challenges), because this would sink your argument.  I understand that however, the actual and documented sequence of events was; you initially claimed to have answered all previous challenges, (allegedly, by answering the context of them), I then challenged your claim to have answered those previous challenges and requested that you support your initial claim, you then tried to get me to prove that you didn't answer prior challenges, (thus attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me), when I refused, you made additional claims that such evidence doesn't exist just because I would'nt go find it for you, (i.e., because I rejected your attempts to shift the burden of proof to me).

[lotsofbabies77]

my perfect after life is my kids and animals all living with me in a huge house but the animals never go to the bathroom.litter boxes isnt part of my happy after life

[SurveyMack10]

-Reproducing  these challenges would not be “doing my research for me” as you are the one who claimed that they exist but cannot show any proof.

False.  You made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made.  No evidence of this was provided.  My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges.  Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).  Since you did evade, weasel and come up with diversionary tangents before there is a strong likelihood of you doing so again if I took the trouble, You Won't Take, to repost each of those challenges which you initially claimed to have
"answered".  In fact, this whole 'reproduce the challenges' loop of yours is, itself, an evasion on your part of the challenge to support your initial claim of answering previous challenges.

-Your insinuation that I feel inferior to you is false as I do not. Just because I do not talk down to you does not mean I feel inferior, merely that I am respectful.

That's merely another of your lies since your comments have not been "respectful" to any degree, (these disrespectful comments of yours, in your
own words, are also available in these threads).  It wouldn't be going out on a limb to estimate that you'd likely deny that your disrespectful comments were disrespectful, (seeing how you have a vested interest in such a biased 'opinion' of your own comments).  As far as the possibility that you feel inferior goes; nominally, those who whine about others being "superior" in their empty opinions usually use that word because they do feel inferior, (which is entirely the problem of the one who feels that way, no matter if they deny it or not).

-You are the one making a claim, I am not required to prove it for you and will not do so. Your claim is unsubstantiated and will continue to be until you show proof.

No, I made a counter-claim _after_  you made the initial claim in that regard that you had answered all challenges made.  No evidence of this was provided.  My _secondary_ claim derived from yours in asserting that you had evaded answering, (and let's be clear at this point; answering isn't merely posting more unsupported crap, it means directly responding to the content of the challenges.  Not weaseling around them, evading them, or coming up with defensive counter-challenges on your part).

-An opinion is simply that, an opinion. I am entitled to any opinion I want.

Indeed, you are "entitled" to hold empty/baseless/unsupported opinions or, opinions that have some veracity or rational basis for that matter.  There is a difference between a baseless/unsupported opinion and an opinion which has a legitimate basis/evidentiary support.  Yours was an unsupported opinion, (which seems to be your preference), and I indicated that to distinguish it from an opinion with a foundational basis.

-Actually, it was not a threat or a demand. It was simply one person informing another that they will not longer waste their time as the other person will not reproduce the needed information to continue the debate.

The burden of proof rests with the one who made the initial claim to have answered all previous challenges, (that's Mackenzie).  It does not rest with an opponent who challenges the initial claimant's initial claim by requesting evidence to support that claim, (the challenger isn't required to produce evidence to support the claimant's claim; the claimant - Mackenzie - has that burden of proof).  Characterizing my challenges as making a claim is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto a secondary claim when you made the initial claim, (and thus, have the initial burden of proof).  This sort of dishonest tactic is the same as someone demanding that their opponent "prove Santa doesn't exist" instead of supporting their initial claim that Santa exists _first_.

  As an aside, I do concur that it is a waste of time 'arguing' with someone like you who blithely makes unsupported claims, attempts to shift the burden of proof when those claims are challenged, lies about this, lies about lying about this, submits diversionary tangents in lieu of responding to context and dissembles with such a degree of hypocrisy so as to make a Republican blush - that would be you, Mackenzie.  The evidence of each of those 'claims' awaits your discovery in these threads.  Naturally, you have no incentive to find this evidence, (or evidence of those unanswered challenges), because this would sink your argument.  I understand that however, the actual and documented sequence of events was; you initially claimed to have answered all previous challenges, (allegedly, by answering the context of them), I then challenged your claim to have answered those previous challenges and requested that you support your initial claim, you then tried to get me to prove that you didn't answer prior challenges, (thus attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me), when I refused, you made additional claims that such evidence doesn't exist just because I would'nt go find it for you, (i.e., because I rejected your attempts to shift the burden of proof to me).

False, the claim made was that I have left challenges unanswered (you made this claim). You refuse to prove this claim. Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.
I never said that I have not been disrespectful at all on this thread, merely that I have not purposely talked down to you disrespectfully in order to blow up my own ego.
Believing in God is not a baseless opinion, but I am not going to debate this with you as I am mature enough to agree to disagree. You do not believe in God so we will not ever come to common ground on this matter. There is no need to even respond to this section of my response for that reason.
Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.

[falcon9]

Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.

Your "proof" did not constitute conclusive evidence and was therefore not considered to be a valid proof, (unsupported opinion does not constitute "proof").  I didn't agree that your unsupported opinion constitutes proof, that's correct. That's why it would be unproductive to repost challenges you failed to answer with substantiated evidence, (in lieu of the unsupported opinions you used instead).

Believing in God is not a baseless opinion ...

Your unsupported opinion, (baseless claim), is without merit.  Such a 'belief' relies upon 'faith' alone, (which is defined as an opinion or belief for which there is no substantive evidence - i.e., a baseless opinion).  Your "opinion" to the contrary is empty given that this is the main challenge you have failed to answer by substantiating your claim, (which, btw, it NOT that you hold such a "belief" but, that such a belief has some evidential basis).

Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.

I just did.  You just claimed that "Believing in God is not a baseless opinion" and provided no support for such a claim.  Let's not go around and around on the same diversion where you focus on 'proof' that you hold such a belief and remain on your actual stated claim that it's "not a baseless belief", (which means that you have an unstated basis for making that claim).  The unanswered challenge is and has been, for you to state that unstated basis, (rather than go off in tangential misdirections this time).

[SurveyMack10]

Also, if I DID answer a challenge and you simply do not accept the proof because you disagree, this does not constitute an unanswered challenge.

Your "proof" did not constitute conclusive evidence and was therefore not considered to be a valid proof, (unsupported opinion does not constitute "proof").  I didn't agree that your unsupported opinion constitutes proof, that's correct. That's why it would be unproductive to repost challenges you failed to answer with substantiated evidence, (in lieu of the unsupported opinions you used instead).

Believing in God is not a baseless opinion ...

Your unsupported opinion, (baseless claim), is without merit.  Such a 'belief' relies upon 'faith' alone, (which is defined as an opinion or belief for which there is no substantive evidence - i.e., a baseless opinion).  Your "opinion" to the contrary is empty given that this is the main challenge you have failed to answer by substantiating your claim, (which, btw, it NOT that you hold such a "belief" but, that such a belief has some evidential basis).

Since you made a claim that I left challenges unanswered, it is your responsibility to prove these claims. Aside from that, if you just restate the challenge I will be glad to answer it now.

I just did.  You just claimed that "Believing in God is not a baseless opinion" and provided no support for such a claim.  Let's not go around and around on the same diversion where you focus on 'proof' that you hold such a belief and remain on your actual stated claim that it's "not a baseless belief", (which means that you have an unstated basis for making that claim).  The unanswered challenge is and has been, for you to state that unstated basis, (rather than go off in tangential misdirections this time).

Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice. I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.

If you respond to this and attempt to debate the validity of the Bible that will be ignored as I have shown many times in this post that I am not at all trying to debate that point and that it is not the issue as I know we will never agree on that, and that we do not have to agree on that.

[falcon9]

Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice.

Oh no you don't; the proof is rejected not because it's my "opinion" but, because the jumbled parables which form whichever version of the "bible" you are using as an appeal to authority, ("basis for a belief in god"), do not constitute conclusive evidence.  What you are implicitly proposing then is that whichever "bible" you are vaguely referencing is, _itself_, as inconclusive and dubious source, an irrational basis for an irrational belief.  According to inferential logic; the belief is irrational if the basis, (premise), is irrational.  Therefore, it is logic, rather than merely my opinion without basis, (in contrast with your opinion that "the bible the basis for a belief in god"), that invalidates your appeal to pseudo-authority.

I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.

Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue:  got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible".  Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years).  There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.  These extend from a time pre-dating xtianity and up through several 'abridged' versions of various "bibles" which co-opted pre-existant pagan belief systems in order to co-opt pagans into conversion.  This despicable behaviour by the "church" proceded to effect the Dark Ages; a time where reason was shunned due to the extant power of the "HolyC" to extort belief at the point of torture and the sword. 

So, got anything else to support your claim besides that?

[Falconer02]

Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue:  got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible".  Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years).  There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.

Let me amplify that claim for you-

http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm

[falcon9]

Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue:  got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible".  Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years).  There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.

Let me amplify that claim for you-

http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm

Thanks, I also came across this supporting reference:

"Pagan spirituality in ancient times from the Mediterranean region was composed of two components:

-The Outer Mysteries consisted of Pagan beliefs and practices which were widely disseminated and taught to the general public. Knowledge of these has been largely preserved in historical records.
-The Inner Mysteries were revealed only to those who had been initiated into the Pagan religions. The initiates learned that Osiris-Dionysus was not a historical person. His legends were simple "spiritual allegories encoding spiritual teachings." Late in the 4th century CE, Christianity was established as the state religion. Pagans were given the choice of converting to Christianity, being exterminated, or being exiled. Their temples were either stolen for use as Christian churches, or destroyed. Eventually, detailed knowledge of the inner mysteries was lost.

The core of the Outer and Inner mysteries was a mythical, male entity who was part god and part human -- often referred to as a "god-man." The biographies of these god-men were consistent from religion to religion. The main difference among the faiths was his name:

 Alexandria: Aion
 Asia Minor: Attis
 Babylonia: Antiochus 
 Egypt: Osiris and Horus
 Greece: Dionysus and Asclepius
 Syria: Adonis
 Italy: Bacchus
 Persia: Mithras"
-- excerpt from  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm

[nomuliguns]

energy is neither created nor destroyed. we are *bleep* of energy, so to speak. something has to happen. we will all find out at some point.

[timvolley]

i only belive that if you accept Jesus Christ as your savoiut do you have eternal life or have a new life to spend with him in Heaven.

[nomuliguns]

The cool thing is that being individuals we all get to have our own opinions and beliefs.

[SurveyMack10]

Well actually the Bible is the basis for a belief in God, but that proof is not accepted by you and that is perfectly fine as that is your opinon and your choice.

Oh no you don't; the proof is rejected not because it's my "opinion" but, because the jumbled parables which form whichever version of the "bible" you are using as an appeal to authority, ("basis for a belief in god"), do not constitute conclusive evidence.  What you are implicitly proposing then is that whichever "bible" you are vaguely referencing is, _itself_, as inconclusive and dubious source, an irrational basis for an irrational belief.  According to inferential logic; the belief is irrational if the basis, (premise), is irrational.  Therefore, it is logic, rather than merely my opinion without basis, (in contrast with your opinion that "the bible the basis for a belief in god"), that invalidates your appeal to pseudo-authority.

I am not trying to convince you of God's existence nor am I claiming such existence as fact. I am merely stating that a belief in God is not just randomly thought of by people, those ideas come from the Bible. Whether or not you accept the Bible as historical evidence, you cannot argue that it is not where the regimen for Christianity comes from.

Given that the various contributing writers of early versions of the "bible", (segue:  got your Aramic copy handy?), lifted/plagiarized and altered several pagan concepts from even earlier cultures, I'd have to extrapolate that those concepts didn't originate with the "bible".  Ref.: Aegyptian myth of Osiris risen as a precurser of the latter 'jesus' myth, (which predated the Judeo-xtian altered version by several thousand years).  There are more cites available, (complete with sources, as if this were a pHd thesis, instead of a debate forum), to support the contention made.  These extend from a time pre-dating xtianity and up through several 'abridged' versions of various "bibles" which co-opted pre-existant pagan belief systems in order to co-opt pagans into conversion.  This despicable behaviour by the "church" proceded to effect the Dark Ages; a time where reason was shunned due to the extant power of the "HolyC" to extort belief at the point of torture and the sword. 

So, got anything else to support your claim besides that?

Welp I did not claim that the Bible was factual, simply that it is the basis for the Christian belief. Are you really arguing that the Bible is not the basis for Christianity?

[bschumacher]

Yes I do