Pericles,

<< What are heaven and hell? >>

I am not speaking on behalf of Coach.
It is not often that my posts deviate from being antagonistic towards Islam.
But I did comment once very briefly on my belief of the existence of supernatural (spirit/soul).

I think most people make the same mistakes you do, posing questions for the purpose of refuting the answers.

I believe truly open-minded logical approach is to first exhaust your own answers, and then ask someone to challenge the basis of your reasonings.

For example: First, state your disbelief in the existence of heaven ( & hell) due to reasons X, Y, and Z.

Then others can comment on the validity of X, Y & Z.

What a very strange piece of logic, GZ.

>>I believe truly open-minded logical approach is to first exhaust your own answers, and then ask someone to challenge the basis of your reasonings. For example: First, state your disbelief in the existence of heaven ( & hell) due to reasons X, Y, and Z.<<

You know perfectly well that this is impossible. How can I provide reasons for not believing in something that has no attributes?

Under these rules, I can talk about the fairies at the bottom of my garden as if they were real, and when you ask what these fairies look like, I simply say "first give me three reasons why you don't believe in them".

How can that be sensible?

Proving a negative has always been a severe challenge, and this is no different.

If, however, you explained to me what heaven and hell look like, who manages the entrance exam for each, what part of me actually goes there, and then answered some common questions like is there really a guy in a red suit with a tail and a pitchfork, do I get my own harp or do I just draw one from central stores every day, how come all angels look so young 'cos I just know my grandmother is one and she was in her seventies when she popped her clogs, then I would be better equipped to measure all that information against my "check-reality" gauge and come up with some actual reasons.

Such as “that makes no sense.”

But without a clear description to work from, you could at any time say “that's not what I was talking about”, and walk away.

The issue here is that you freely use the concepts of heaven and hell to frighten the bejeezus out of young children and gullible adults, but back away at a rate of knots when asked to actually describe them. You use the fear of the unknown, and threats of non-specific torture or pleasure, and then have the sheer gall to ask me to justify my disbelief.

Good Grief!

Pericles,

<< What a very strange piece of logic >>

Not at all. I said you need to first exhaust YOUR OWN answers.
I did not suggest you must be able to prove anything, or even know anything.
It is certainly not about proving a negative.

I am simply suggesting a process, whereby first step is to lay out what you know. Next, let others tell you what you may not know. Then adjust your boundary of knowledge, if necessary. Then repeat the sequence over and over until a full picture is clear.

<< How can I provide reasons for not believing in something that has no attributes? >>

Shouldn't a defensive question of this nature be modified?

You obviously exhausted your knowledge about the attributes of heaven (as you know of none), the next question is simply asking someone to provide a list of heaven's attributes, which then you can challenge.

Rather than being purely defensive.

So, GZ Tan - I'm still interested in the whole Virgin Birth and Resurrection thing vis a vis the Gabriel and Mohammed thing you demanded of Muslims in another thread.

In your terms, what I know is that each is a central mythological construct which has no actual empirical evidence beyond their sacred mythological texts. To put it crudely, they are all equally imaginary events that people invented a long time ago.

OK - your turn now. What does GZ Tan know that can add to my understanding of the universal human predisposition to create and believe myths, and why should the Virgin Birth and Resurrection myths have any more credibility than those involving Mohammed's purported conversations with Gabriel?

Since you've previously pronounced me a "fool", I am clearly in need of enlightenment.

Can I join this discussion? Pericles, isn't your rationale the same as CJM's: ie "lack of empirical evidence"? If so, then haven't we simply unearthed the God debate that Richard Dawkins and others are involved in against the theists?

Actually I was surprised, Pericles, that you started with heaven and hell, as usually the topic starts with God. It mattters because it's very hard to speak about heaven and hell without God already "on the table": then, heaven becomes "Where God is", and hell "Where God ain't" (or something to that effect). If you receive a clearer description, I'll be glad to read it and be illuminated.

CJM: "lack of empirical evidence" is only a problem if you are an empiricist. You are then limited to what can be proved. I see it as an arbitrary limitation, and I don't subscribe to it.

I don't mean I don't trust my eyes. I do: "seeing is believing". But, I also believe "there is more to this than meets the eyes".

Pax,

The British government set the stage for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was set forth, leading to the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. In the process, countless numbers of Palestinians were driven away from their homes in a wave of massacres and killings carried out by Zionists and also the Israeli army.

Aided by the Western countries and especially the US, the Zionists could easily defeat the Arabs in any type of warfare. Christian Zionists, and Zionists alike, look into their scriptures and misinterpreted that ‘God’ would set up a Kingdom on earth with Jerusalem being the capital city.(This is one of the silliest theology I have ever come across. Why would God want a globally-warmed, polluted and sick earth when he can easily create a new one since he is God Almighty?).

Unable to find a lasting solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the Palestinians took refuge in the politico-religious system of Islam. This explains the irrational behaviour of the suicide bombers and, using the Koran as a manual for warfare proved to be disastrous for the Palestinians because in modern warfare, science, technology and rational thinking is vital for ultimate victory. Myths, legends gleaned from a holy book and shouts of ‘Allahu akbar’ will get them no where. This situation has been capitalised by the jihadist in their terrorism against the non-Muslim world, and the West in particular.

Therefore any solution to stopping the extremism of Islamists has to address the wider issue of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Zionists lobbying the US government, Christian Zionists and well-meaning Christians being taught bad theology (Whose land? Palestinian-israeli confict http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/id21.html) have made the peace process almost impossible to achieve.