(Top Posts - Philosophy
valid are they, philosophically and literally?
-- One must wonder, is it morally
reputable to make promises/threats regarding
afterlife existence -and- provide nothing in the
way of evidence?
After all, as for afterlife promises, anyone can
make them (and many religions have made them),
but without one iota of evidence that any promises
are reality, aren't they all, every last one of
them, vacuous in nature?
What is the difference between a con and a reality?
If you look up details on criminals who practice
the con game, you'll notice striking similarities
between their game -and- the game that all the
afterlife promisers/threateners are playing.
-- One must wonder, with all the attribu-
tions made towards superbeings, spirits, holy
ghosts, God(s), Christ, saviors, prayer power,
heaven, hell, etc., why have the entire lot of
them, beings -and- places -and- so-called an-
swering of prayers, managed to escape, totally,
the realm of human observation -and- experi-
In other words, religionists continue to promote
the notion that just believing in 'magic' is superior
to actually testing the claims and disbelieving them
if the tests demonstrate all the supernatural claims
consist of nothing -but- unsupported non-confirm-
able assertions (the con game).