badgerx16

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 ?

You again make an unsubstantiated presumption; that Whelk has read such books and accepts what they say as fact. Where is your evidence that he has done so ? Also, what evidence can you produce that the afterlife does not exist ? ( Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ).

Given that Whelk is posting on the forum and you are responding to him, I assume that you accept he is aive, and therefore not yet in a position to answer your questions. Perhaps you could wait until you are better qualified to judge the evidence of an afterlife for yourself.

OK, let me rephrase.. Somebody with certain forms of synesthesia would be able to answer. Some forms can cause sensory triggers from emotional stimuli.

Somebody with synesthesia would be able to answer.

I don't think padding out and gerrymandering the Lords were on the cards last December; "Boris Johnson’s government is eyeing radical plans to reform the House of Lords as part of a constitutional overhaul aimed at strengthening the UK and countering the rise of Scottish nationalism. Aides to the prime minister are examining the membership and role of parliament’s upper chamber, which is home to almost 800 appointed peers and focuses on scrutinising legislation. Discussions among government insiders include whether the Lords should have directly or indirectly elected members, so as to give the UK’s constituent nations a greater stake at Westminster. Any Lords reform could be part of a broader constitutional overhaul trailed in the Conservatives’ general election manifesto, and the idea of sweeping changes is being driven by Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief adviser." https://www.ft.com/content/dc8f0c22-201d-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96

Would you be happy for pubs to close again in order to allow schools to fully open ?

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/july/lord-speaker-comments-on-new-appo/ Lord Fowler, the Lord Speaker, said: “This list of new Peers marks a lost opportunity to reduce numbers in the House of Lords. The result will be that the House will soon be nearly 830 strong - almost 200 greater than the House of Commons. That is a massive policy u-turn. It was only two years ago that the then Prime Minister, Mrs May, pledged herself to a policy of “restraint” in the number of new appointments. It was the first time that any Prime Minister had made such a pledge. “This followed a report by a special Lord Speaker’s committee chaired by Lord (Terry) Burns proposing that numbers should be reduced to 600. This was debated by the Lords itself with over 90 speakers, commanding overwhelming support. The big opportunity was for the present Government to take forward this movement for reform. I emphasise that this is not a matter of personalities. It is a question of numbers and the abandonment of an established policy to reduce the size of the House. “It is also a vast pity that the list has been announced within the first few days of the summer recess when neither House is sitting, and the Government cannot be challenged in Parliament.”

Thornton's