If you don't think the conclusion is perhaps mistaken then what is your major problem with the conclusion?
My problem is the way you achieved the conclusion. You're afraid of Hell, but you're absolutely ignorant of any of the alternatives. That's a poor method to conme to any conclusion.
I have heard of Poseidon and read a bit about him and saw a character based on him in a movie. Do you expect me to know everything about Poseidon?
If you're going to say 'disbelieve in Poseidon has no major consequences,' i would expect you to be able to say how you came to that conclusion.
I'd expect you to know the consequences of any religion you're going to dismiss by hand-waving away.
You're nowhere near well-enough educated to support your assessment of the risks.
I don't think it matters how much I know about Poseidon.... what matters is whether my conclusion is correct.
But even if your conclusion is correct, the way you got to it, you're only correct by coincidence. You're trusting your soul (should one exist) to a rather biased and self-serving analysis.
If you think my conclusion is incorrect then you ARE saying that maybe the lack of belief in Poseidon is a threat.
I think it's correct. But only because you got lucky, not because you actually knew what the hell you were talking about.
So i have to ask how you decided to ignore the consequences of every other afterlife you're not interested in.
Let's say I claimed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (though I know of some people who would disagree). Would you object to me stating that? After all I haven't done any experiments or learnt the math behind that. I want to know.
Like the Cheetah, i think you would need to phrase it better to show that you are actually understanding it, and not simply parroting a phrase you don't understand fully.
Yes after I posted that I realised I was talking about land speed. BTW by pointing that out you demonstrated how easy it is to disprove me - just show one counter-example.
But my intention wasnot to disprove you. My goal was to point out that you don't know shit about afterlives other than the one you were raised with, a couple of stories, and maybe
Clash of the Titans.
On the other hand for me to prove my statement I would have had to investigate every animal.
No. you can just find references of people who have done the research, just be more careful about how you state it, to show you understand their reference. 'fastest animal' doesn't begin to say 'fastest at what?' Travel? Reproduction? Investment gains? Healing?
Either way, without SOMEONE doing the research, your statement's pretty much worthless.
You see I only thought about a few animals and decided that they weren't faster than a cheetah. I had considered birds but assumed that maybe they weren't faster than a cheetah.
And, wow, gosh, Wiki could have fixed that for you.
The burden is STILL on you to support your statements.
The burden is not on your critics to support or disprove your statements.
If you ever defend your thesis formally, the guys at the desks CAN ask: How do you konw this to be true? without being called upon to produce countering evidence.
The way you got to your conclusions is at least as important as your conclusions.
I guess I could have done proper research and looked up the speeds for birds. So you're saying I should investigate 3000+ religions or gods or whatever.... but similar to the cheetah example it is far easier for you to just provide ONE counter-example
Why should i give a fuck what's easier for YOU?
YOu're the one making the claim. If you can't be arsed to make it a decent claim, with support, then it's just going to be 'this thing excreationist said' that can be dismissed as easily as most of our Senate.
If you don't know of any counter-example, what is your objection?
Your ill-prepared to make the claims you have made. I simply asked 'how do you know' and your reaction has taken this thread way off course. Which is fine by me. But if you had any sort of goal with this thread? compare where you expected to go with where you went. And see just how much of it could have been avoided if you had come up with a reference or the result of some time spent in reasearch.
You're just saying maybe I'm wrong.
No. I'm saying there's no reason to think you're right.
But unless you can provide some evidence then your words aren't very helpful.
Awwww. The 'EVIDENCE' I'm showing you is that you were unprepared for the statement about Poseidon. You're further unprepared for any questions about Japanese gods, Roman gods, Norse gods, Australian gods, Allah... That's your problem.
It's like you saying "maybe you're wrong about the cheetah" and not giving an example of a faster animal. It is just annoying.
Okay.
Then again, when you make claims that there's hardly any consequence to ignoring Poseidon, when you clearly don't know what consequences there are, that's a little bit annoying.
When you try to defend your ignorance because actually being able to answer the question would be hard, and it would take time.... That's really annoying.
If you don't think I'm wrong then what is your problem with that statement? If my statement is true then it means that Poseidon doesn't send nonbelievers to hell.
If your statement about Poseidon is true, then you got lucky. It's not a statement made from knowledge.
Are you sure you can get lucky 3000+ more times?
