On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:39:49 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:53:10 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<uot9ovklro3q6i5reicgnbdiv48dvaq0sf@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:10:52 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:31:50 -0400, "Appelonius"
<noneofyourbuseness@myemail.com>, Message ID:
<vo3k9oq193fubf@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Ronnie Clark" <ronnie@blugman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blsiie$e3o$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

No. "Judgement day", spoken of in "Revelation" warns us that the dead

shall

come back to life and all who have ever lived will be judged. Those who

are

not worthy of life shall simply be destroyed, ie cease to exist at all,
rather than be sent back to hell.

That's an interesting point, I never thought of it that way. I'd assumed
Judgement Day would be whenever you died, but the book of Revelations *does*
state that this will be a future event. Do Christians have an answer to
that, ie. why, if a soul has already been judged and sentenced to Hell that
it will have a second judgement?

Is this maybe explained by purgatory? Perhaps souls are not judged yet and
are just waiting in purgatory until Judgement day? I'm going to have to
brush up on the theology involved there...

Seems to me Purgatory is a christian invention in an attempt to plug a
hole.

It was a Catholic invention intended to raise money.

I read that and the first thought was you were a bit confused as the
selling of 'indulgences' came to mind. Right after that I remembered
that the payments of goodly sums of money would shorten Purgatory time.

It is still a very good control device.

"Doctor Nope" <doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<RhOgb.2153$av5.1900@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:c2q6ovk5j8k2qpa5te3cskupphfih7ntf1@Pern.rk...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:26:41 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

I didn't shift *****, oh master of the strawman, I was pointing out that

BOTH

are unprovable.

Existentially negative assertions require no proof, so both what?
There's only one existential assertion here - the one that some god
exists. "What evidence to you have to back up that assertion?"
doesn't require proof.

Look up 'argumentum ad ignorantiam', while you're looking things up.
Regardless of your assertion of not requiring proof, the assumption I was
addressing (that lack of proof of heaven is proof of lack of heaven) is
still a logical fallacy. And lest you beat the bedevilled strawman yet
again, I was not and am not talking about simple disbelief. That was your
and the other FundiAtheist's insertions.

Yeah,I wander how mny of the following apply to Chris and his ilk?
http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:38:41 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:c2q6ovk5j8k2qpa5te3cskupphfih7ntf1@Pern.rk...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:26:41 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

I didn't shift *****, oh master of the strawman, I was pointing out that BOTH
are unprovable.

Existentially negative assertions require no proof, so both what?
There's only one existential assertion here - the one that some god
exists. "What evidence to you have to back up that assertion?"
doesn't require proof.

Look up 'argumentum ad ignorantiam', while you're looking things up.
Regardless of your assertion of not requiring proof, the assumption I was
addressing (that lack of proof of heaven is proof of lack of heaven)

You might have been thinking about that, but the post you were
responding to had nothing to do with that. Christopher was merely
pointing out (IIRC) that what a theist believes only has relevance
within that theist's belief system, not to those outside of it.