badgerx16

There you go again; the argument for God, in the eyes of a believer, does not start with an 'assumption' that there is a creator, it starts with the absolute knowledge that He ( / She ) exists. Indeed, you are part of the proof.

Why do you have to be so dismissive of other people's belief systems ?

The problem with this is that his proof of God is Creation, and you won't accept that this is proof. The argument then tends towards becoming a perpetual motion engine.

Threatens to ban TikTok, which lowers the share price. This possibly makes it easier for Micro$oft to buy the US arm of the company, so Trump demands a cut of the deal for the Treasury, because he has made it happen.

1) And you accuse other people of deliberately misunderstanding and misquoting. You said that Protestants and Catholics have differing views on Purgatory, when in fact people of both faiths hold both views - it exists or it does not. 2) That whatever way they paint it, an afterlife exists.

You have completely missed the point, ( again ), which was to show that because you do not posess any evidence that something exists, does not mean that it doesn't. If I ask you 'is there an afterlife ?" you will say no, if I ask a beleiver they will say yes.

Did God make him a tit, or just grant him the free will to develop in that way of his own volition ?

The analogy works, your brain simply doesn't register the fact.

1) How many schisms do you think Martin Luther caused to form his new set of beliefs ? Is it one per thesis ? 2) Humans create the definitions of the afterlife to try to justify their position and attract followers. This is all window dressing, but does not underrmine the fundamental underpinning.

I was sorely tempted to make a personal comparison at this point. You said that conflicting views on a question cannot both be correct, when in fact they can.

The schism that Luther brought about was not about the afterlife, it was based on a much deeper distrust of Catholicism - the view on purgatory derived from this, but was not the cause of the schism.

"Sire, the Pedants are revolting !". That question would get the same answer.

It shows that the individuals' beliefs are their own and not fixated on religious doctrine. Protestant reformers rejected the concept because Martin Luther did so, which was driven by his personal opinions of Catholicism - which supports my position that schisms are driven by human personal prejudice and desire for self aggrandisement.

"Purgatory : After years of neglect, some Protestants now believe it exists; many Catholics don’t. For others, it’s not a place--it’s a state of mind." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-10-20-ls-59038-story.html

If Jean Paul Sartre is correct, does this mean that MLG is proof that there IS an afterlife ?

I refer you back to my coin analogy.

Which schisms have been due to disagreements about the nature of a potential afterlife ? You are aware the Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all fundamentally the same religion, and that their differences are nothing to do with what happens after you die ?

How can you decide that they do not stand up to scrutiny ? That is merely your opinion.

There will always be schisms in religions because human nature will always tend to distort it for selfish reasons - eg King Henry 8th effectively creating the CofE in order to get a divorce. The fact is that many people around the world do believe in an afterlife, many are so keen to get there fast that they blow themselves up.

So, in summary, you cannot provide any evidence for your assertion that there is no afterlife.

Reading the first post, your assertion appears to be that on the subject of an afterlife religious books do not stand up to scrutiny. You are evading the question.

But if there is you would be able to make the judgement. People were stating that the World is round before Columbus sailed across the Atlantic, but there hadn't been any proof until he went there, trusting in his beliefs rather than tangible evidence.

He'll be able to judge for himself at some point in the future.

That is not evidence that the afterlife does not exist, merely that each of those alleged billions has their own interpretation. If I could find 2 people who had never seen money and sat them facing each other, then held a pound coin up between them and asked them if they could see a face, one of them would say no, but that wouldn't mean the face didn't exist. Both interpretations of the coin would be correct. The variety of interpretations of religious texts are not indicative of the status or veracity of what is written, but rather a sign of human self interest.

You said that none of the major religious books could withstand scrutiny in relation to an afterlife. Where is your evidence to support this claim ?