As I sat there in church, for the sake of my extended family, I realized what a joke the entire nativity story of Christianity is, and I don't say this pejoratively.

I stared down at the priest, who was giving a sermon about the story, with a bunch of small tots dressed up as ancient goat herders gathered around the altar. I stared at the glaring eyes of those around me, my family included, gulping each and every word as absolute truth professed by the almighty God. Then I realized, this is a joke.

Of course, I never believed the story, and have been an declared atheist for many years now. I had always dismissed the story as mythological trite, but I had never viewed it through the lenses of logic. Let me enlighten you as to my point of view:

Christians believe that, 2009 years ago, the son of God was born in a humble manger in Judea, of a virgin mother. Fine, that's not the point I'm arguing. What I am arguing is the chutzpah of every believing Christian, the fact that you all turned a secondhand account of an event that had happened centuries before and then declared the account(s) as ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and proceeded to establish a religion out of it.

I'm not arguing the logistics of a virgin birth, nor am I arguing the existence of God; I am merely seething at the hubris, the egotism of Christians to proclaim outdated secondhand accounts as the paramount truth and acts of God :mad:

ITT: Confirmation that religion is, always has been and always will be a gigantic farce, shamelessly used to control the ignorant, emotionally unstable masses.

to each his own.
But aside from that, the story was handed down and the earliest accounts (the gospels I think) were written within one or two generations of the death of Christ. I think Mark was the earliest in AD 55, it's not that far away from the death actually (as I said earlier 1 or 2 generations).
Confirmation that religion is, always has been and always will be a gigantic farce, shamelessly used to control the ignorant, emotionally unstable masses.
maybe, maybe not. I'm not entirely sure if this is as true as it was in the middle ages.

I mean, why not? Whats wrong with believing that if you're good in this life you will get to live another in paradise? This has motivated countless people to do countless good deeds, and why not?

And even if Jesus DIDN'T exist then he's just a symbol, a big metaphor just like the rest of the bible. And people need symbols.

I don't think it's arrogance.

It's probably more like having more faith than is warranted.

I mean, why not? Whats wrong with believing that if you're good in this life you will get to live another in paradise? This has motivated countless people to do countless good deeds, and why not?

And even if Jesus DIDN'T exist then he's just a symbol, a big metaphor just like the rest of the bible. And people need symbols.

What's wrong is that that seemingly innocent affects us in several profound ways. That belief in paradise is the very definition of a bigoted, partisan farce. What, those who don't believe get to burn?? O RLY?

As much good as the Christian religion has created, it has been used for extremely dire purposes.

Once the Roman Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church established an absolute stranglehold over European society. ABSOLUTE. For an entire Millennium. The governing authority of Christianity has manipulated the blind faith of the common people to extract money, power, and even their lives.

And if Jesus didn't exist, that's exactly what he is, a symbol. A fucking SYMBOL. I'd love to hear how people need symbols, though. If you intend to argue a lack of secular ethics, please see Zay's thread in My God.

as much as I hate quoting marx, he said it best "religion is the opiate of the masses"

as much as I hate quoting marx, he said it best "religion is the opiate of the masses"

"If the shoe fits...."

What's wrong is that that seemingly innocent affects us in several profound ways. That belief in paradise is the very definition of a bigoted, partisan farce. What, those who don't believe get to burn?? O RLY?

It doesn't matter.

From what you've written, I assume you don't believe there is a heaven or hell. I agree with you. But I consider myself to be unfortunate in this, and can only hope that sometime in my life I'll find something I can believe in, to convince me that an afterlife does exist.




As much good as the Christian religion has created, it has been used for extremely dire purposes.

Power corrupts, and over the course of a few thousand years there is going to be those who will use that power to their own gain...wouldn't you? :p

I would.

If it hadn’t become an issue it wouldn’t have been an issue, but now it is…To me the question is simply do we have a perfect copy of the Word of God in our times. If you believe we have a mostly perfect copy or a pretty good copy your answer to the above question is no. My answer to the above is Yes. I happen to believe God has not left us without His word, and that means all His words. I believe the God who gave us His word is able to also preserve His word. I believe in the miracle of inspiration and I believe in the miracle of preservation.

The next question is if we have it where is it ? It can’t be all Bible versions because they are all different, some by little some by much. I believe God has given English speaking people a perfect Word of God in the King James Bible, because of the superior texts it was translated from and because of the superior translation methods that were used. I do not believe that the Wescott and Hort texts are better. They are recent discoveries and I for one do not believe God was waiting 1800 years to give us the true Bible. Nor can I accept that He was hiding this better manuscript in the Vatican ( does something smell fishy here…) and in the deserts of Egypt just waiting for the Laodecian church to find them. We already had the best manuscripts and they are the ones our King James Bible comes from. There are many excellent websites that go into detail about all this and you should visit there if you want to study the details.

Do I believe someone can get saved from another version ? Yes I do, in fact I believe you could get saved from a talking donkey if you told you enough true things. Of course four footed talking donkeys are not all that common…the two footed ones much easier to find. I am glad I did not receive the kind of education that taught me there was no true Word of God in our day…Pity those that did. Blinded by arrogant intellectualism and trapped now by their college loyalties they become evangelists in the cause of persuading others that they too have no reliable Word of God. What a sad situation. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools…

as much as I hate quoting marx, he said it best "religion is the opiate of the masses"

Religion has its functions in a society. As much bad as it's purported to have done, it's also done a lot of good (probably enough to offset the bad).

I don't know what was going on in Marx' mind when he uttered that. But if I were to guess, I believe he was alluding to the fact that Christianity quiets the common people down so that they are content with their lot in life, and as such won't rise up against the elites/ruling class?



"If the shoe fits...."

Not to be rude but you remind me of Slave of the Beast.

I would highly recommend that you try and have a point in your next post.

What's wrong is that that seemingly innocent affects us in several profound ways. That belief in paradise is the very definition of a bigoted, partisan farce. What, those who don't believe get to burn?? O RLY?

What's it to you that some people want to believe in a paradise/heaven? Furthermore, what's it to you that they claim non-believers will burn in hell? If it bothers you that much, why don't you just walk away?

Also I would probably avoid saying things like "o rly" in the more serious forums.


As much good as the Christian religion has created, it has been used for extremely dire purposes.

What are these dire purposes you speak of?


Once the Roman Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church established an absolute stranglehold over European society. ABSOLUTE. For an entire Millennium. The governing authority of Christianity has manipulated the blind faith of the common people to extract money, power, and even their lives.

1. Assuming what you are claiming (the manipulating to get money part) is true, I should think that not all of the priests/church authority, whatever its called involved were like that. I have read a few stories of saints/saintly people.

2. You are confusing practitioners of Christianity with Christianity itself.


And if Jesus didn't exist, that's exactly what he is, a symbol. A fucking SYMBOL. I'd love to hear how people need symbols, though. If you intend to argue a lack of secular ethics, please see Zay's thread in My God.

Assuming that Jesus (as described by the Bible) didn't exist:

He, or what he symbolized, shows people "the way to be", for a lack of better phrase. Europeans followed his teachings for many many years and as a result had enjoyed reasonably stable societies.

My God...

What's it to you that some people want to believe in a paradise/heaven? Furthermore, what's it to you that they claim non-believers will burn in hell? If it bothers you that much, why don't you just walk away?

WAN, people do great things, terrible things, in the name of God, or of their religion. They impose they views unto others, they will exclude others out of society for not agreeing with them, they even go to war over this.


What are these dire purposes you speak of?

[See_above]


1. Assuming what you are claiming (the manipulating to get money part) is true, I should think that not all of the priests/church authority, whatever its called involved were like that. I have read a few stories of saints/saintly people.

The money part is absolutely true, WAN. Hell, I even remember my Catholic history teacher talk about this. Every Christian fief, duchy, kingdom and empire in Europe paid a 10% tribute to the Catholic Pope in Rome up to the Protestant Reformation. You think Catherine of Aragón was the only reason King Henry VIII broke with the Church?

Of course not all the priests were evil. They actually served good purposes during that time, such as the preserving of written language, and providing us with a system of musical notation. But the very core of the Church, the Oligarchy, if you will, was indeed very corrupt. Not only were they arguably the richest and most powerful men in the world, but they didn't even follow their own doctrines, they were repressive, and they were power-hungry.


He, or what he symbolized, shows people "the way to be", for a lack of better phrase. Europeans followed his teachings for many many years and as a result had enjoyed reasonably stable societies.

No, not this argument, WAN. Zay has already discussed secular ethics in another thread, and I'm not up for that. Back in those days, however, the funny thing is that almost the rest of the world was more advanced than Europe, and guess what, they weren't Christians.

At this time, Europe was extremely backwards. Technology was lost after the fall of the Romans, and it took 1000 years to catch up, thanks to a stranglehold by the Church. However, "pagan" Mayans in the Yucatan were already mapping the heavens, the Indians in the sub-continent were building Empires, and the Chinese were already shooting off guns, for god's sake. Guess the odd ones out...

Greetings heathens,

Simply put there is a God and you can choose to believe Him or choose to deny Him. The mere fact this is such a hot topic is evidence that the Lord is trying to reach out to everybody on the face of the earth. You are asking yourselves these questions because God is putting the in your heart - he wants you to make a choice. He want's you to choose him; but will you? The God of the Bible is real. The God of the Bible's prophecies come to pass (Ezekiel 4:3-6 was fulfilled in 1948 - accurate to the very year). And most importantly, Jesus was real. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins once and for all.

Will you accept this gift of salvation and forgiveness? All you must do is believe on him and accept him as your savior and you will go to heaven when you die.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehimsh

I'll be lukewarm to take you seriously at first, because the trolling here is incessant.

In the case that you are in fact a minister, good on you. I do not want to get into a heated theological debate with you, because there is a plethora of information that we can both fling at each other, and I'm not up for that. If anything, I, and all other interested posters, are welcomed to discuss faith and theology in piecemeal, because uprooting a whole plant in one large heave is too much of an effort.

Now there are several points I would like to talk about. You state that there is great discussion among this topic, and that such discussion is auspicious. Auspicious indeed! It shows that many more people are thinking for themselves, and offering a critical analysis to their everyday lives. To what conclusions they reach; that is not my prerogative.

Now, I opened my bible to Ezekiel, and read the passages, yet I see no evidence of prediction. And if there is such, it is extremely vague. If you are alluding to the formation of the state of Israel, I will be glad to inform you that, right now, the Palestinians are asking for their land back, and not too nicely.

Now, assuming Jesus existed, what is it about him redeem the sins of the world? Is it the fact that he suffered by being nailed onto a cross? Because I can tell you, many, many more people have experienced greater pain, and for less reason. Take for example those poor German girls from about a month ago.

They're born, and they were kept locked up in a basement of 27 years. They never left. And their father raped them. Daily. He even fathered 9 malformed children with them. He beat them, they were filthy, all of them. I think it is fair to say that they have been through greater pain that being nailed. Am I to worship them because they have been through pain and innocent?

Secondly, I discuss the topic of a historical Jesus right hear in my thread. Before you go about declaring the new Testament as the absolute and infallible word of God, read my posts. You'll see the irony.

Then you offer me the gift of "salvation and forgiveness", and a free ticket to Heaven. As nice as it'd be to be up amongst the clouds, angels, and deceased loved ones, what are the consequences of refusal? Do I writhe, twist, moan, agonize, burn and suffer for all eternity? Well, bub, there's a thousand other religions out there with as tall a tale as yours, and apparently, you're up for the fryin' booth too.

Indeed most of your points are quite true, and do not require any further comment.

I am assuming when you say "assuming Jesus existed" you mean Jesus as the son of God, as there is ample historical evidence that he did actually exist. All religious opinions aside, to deny the existence of the person we know as Jesus (whatever you consider him to be) is truly foolish.

While I would prefer to discuss the prophecy of Ezekiel in another thread, the issue of how only Jesus was able to die for our sins is in a way complicated. Simply put though in both the old and new testaments, it was God who provided the sacrifice. God provided Jesus to pay for our sins, as he was sinless.

The sacrifice must take the place of sinful man: Sin and guilt was imputed to Jesus. As the wages of sin is death, he had to die for us. But as our sin was imputed to him, he has taken that punishment upon himself, for people past, present and future. Praise the Lord!

I'm glad I could enlighten you.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Greetings heathens,

And most importantly, Jesus was real. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins once and for all.

Will you accept this gift of salvation and forgiveness? All you must do is believe on him and accept him as your savior and you will go to heaven when you die.


So I can do whatever the heck I want because someone died 2000 years ago and I'm not responsible for my own actions? But the second before I die I can say hey Jesus, you saved me.And I'm in pearly white clouds and golden gates forever?
And if I don't am I going to rot in Hell no matter my actions on Earth? Heck, I might as well believe "Jesus you saved me" and shoot myself, why live on Earth when I can just die and live in "heaven?"
Dogma fails.

Indeed most of your points are quite true, and do not require any further comment.

I am assuming when you say "assuming Jesus existed" you mean Jesus as the son of God, as there is ample historical evidence that he did actually exist. All religious opinions aside, to deny the existence of the person we know as Jesus (whatever you consider him to be) is truly foolish.

While I would prefer to discuss the prophecy of Ezekiel in another thread, the issue of how only Jesus was able to die for our sins is in a way complicated. Simply put though in both the old and new testaments, it was God who provided the sacrifice. God provided Jesus to pay for our sins, as he was sinless.

The sacrifice must take the place of sinful man: Sin and guilt was imputed to Jesus. As the wages of sin is death, he had to die for us. But as our sin was imputed to him, he has taken that punishment upon himself, for people past, present and future. Praise the Lord!

I'm glad I could enlighten you.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

If Christ took only the wage of death from our sins, then we would no longer die. The cup that God gave Christ to drink was not that of physical death, but the full and infinite burden of God's wrath against sin. Rather than destroying every last of His creation; He took the burden of wrath upon HIMSELF as He, the Almighty, is the only One mighty and righteous enough to endure His own perfect wrath. This is why Christ proclaims being abandoned by God at his time of death - all presence of God was taken from Him; God turned His back upon Himself in wrath and smote Christ, not just in flesh, but in spirit too. His avatar was completely devoured and three days later reformed. Christ did not just die those three days; He was subjected to the entirety of Wrath so that man would be spared that judgment; so that the faithful may find heaven, and that the haters of God may be smote from existence in Hellfire rather than subjected to eternal wrath in the knowledge of their folly.

Perhaps something to consider; it has certainly deepened my own faith to understand this.

I feel the following is relevant to this thread:


Harmony is only in following the Way.

The Way is without form or quality,
But expresses all forms and qualities;
The Way is hidden and implicate,
But expresses all of nature;
The Way is unchanging,
But expresses all motion.

Beneath sensation and memory
The Way is the source of all the world.
How can I understand the source of the world?
By accepting.



Accept and you become whole,
Bend and you straighten,
Empty and you fill,
Decay and you renew,
Want and you acquire,
Fulfill and you become confused.

The sage accepts the world
As the world accepts the Way;
He does not display himself, so is clearly seen,
Does not justify himself, so is recognized,
Does not boast, so is credited,
Does not pride himself, so endures,
Does not contend, so none contend against him.

The ancients said, "Accept and you become whole",
Once whole, the world is as your home.

I feel the following is relevant to this thread:

He who doesn't understand the Way laughs at it, and if he did not, it would not be the Way. (paraphrase, yeah, but spot on) :)

Many thanks for the additional explaination Hexadecimal. For the record, I agree wholly with your statement, I was merely trying to provide as simple an explaination as possible. While I myself do understand this, I would have had difficulty explaining it to others.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

You silly geese wouldn't even be talking about Luke, John and the gang if Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea hadn't concluded that they were the 4 most compatible to be used to run an organized religion, as well as to discredit the Gnostic texts.

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

You silly geese wouldn't even be talking about Luke, John and the gang if Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea hadn't concluded that they were the 4 most compatible to be used to run an organized religion, as well as to discredit the Gnostic texts.

Agreed, yet, if they were going to use organized religion, I really wish they would of used the more "correct" of them, the Gnostic text and the Nag Hammadi library. But they really don't serve well together as organized, but shit, there'd be *less dogma and plain out stupidity, at least in gnosticism you have to THINK and DO, rather than sit on a pew and be told what to believe.

Agreed, yet, if they were going to use organized religion, I really wish they would of used the more "correct" of them, the Gnostic text and the Nag Hammadi library. But they really don't serve well together as organized, but shit, there'd be *less dogma and plain out stupidity, at least in gnosticism you have to THINK and DO, rather than sit on a pew and be told what to believe.

Absolutely. In those times, however, it was easier for the central authority to keep the people in line by scaring them with tales of hellfire and demons and a God-incarnate named Jesus instead of giving them texts that instead of making vague and unfounded promises endowed the readers with wisdom and forethought. It's a shame Constantine was so short-sighted.

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

So? Whats wrong with it? It works, doesn't it? It teaches a lifestyle of compassion and peace, improved the lives of countless people. You can't seem to understand that its accuracy doesn't matter in the slightest as long as people believe and live by what it teaches to the best of their ability.

Why the fuck can't you understand this?

So? Whats wrong with it? It works, doesn't it? It teaches a lifestyle of compassion and peace, improved the lives of countless people. You can't seem to understand that its accuracy doesn't matter in the slightest as long as people believe and live by what it teaches to the best of their ability.

Why the fuck can't you understand this?

Apparently you're the one that doesn't understand shit. Peace and compassion aside, Christianity is ruthlessly dogmatic. The pastor himself told me to follow Jesus' teachings and go to heaven.

How can he honestly promise anyone eternal paradise by interpreting a sketchy mélange of more or less contradictory texts.

When you talk about peace and compassion, you delve into the realm of ethics, and Zay's thread here has blown that argument out of the water. You then talk about people believing. Believing what, that a God-man turned water to wine and raised the dead 2000 years? And how can you say it's accuracy doesn't matter?

The whole premise of the fucking religion is the accuracy of it's teachings. By telling people to believe to get into heaven, you must then provide them with a guideline. And of course, most gobble up that misinterpreted guideline like the literal word of God.

But ultimately, you did not mention heaven in your post, so I take it you were giving Christianity props for its morality. Again, I invite you to go see Zay's thread on secular human ethics.

Your pastor can not promise anyone eternal paradise after death, but he can make you believe that afterlife exists if you let him and thats all that matters. The whole "premise of the fucking religion" is not the accuracy of it's teachings but willingness to belief its accuracy.


Whether the afterlife promised by your pastor exists or not doesn't matter in the slightest, all that matters is if you believe it or not. If you do, then this does several things:


1) Makes you comfortable death, assuming that you have lived a life that is in line with those beliefs. This means that you will live your life according to those beliefs to the best of your ability if you truly believe in heaven/hell.


2) Makes you comfortable with the death of loved ones, assuming YOU BELIEVE they have lived a life that is in line with those beliefs. This means that people will not only live by their code of ethics, but will try to get others to live by them as well (also ensuring the spread of the religion).


Examples for Christianity:
Matthew 7:12
Matthew 25:34-40
Matthew 6:14-15



Are you understanding any of this? :rolleyes:

Absolutely. In those times, however, it was easier for the central authority to keep the people in line by scaring them with tales of hellfire and demons and a God-incarnate named Jesus instead of giving them texts that instead of making vague and unfounded promises endowed the readers with wisdom and forethought. It's a shame Constantine was so short-sighted.

Well, you can't blame Constantine though, he did make a smart and intelligent move for himself, just not future humanity in general, besides the elitist.

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

Indeed this may be the point of thread initially. Unlike monkeys however, threads do evolve, and it's in your best interest to keep up with it, lest some of the other posters think you are 'retreating' in a sense.

Don't worry brother, I'm not judging you.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Well, you can't blame Constantine though, he did make a smart and intelligent move for himself, just not future humanity in general, besides the elitist.

Of course, the man was brilliant. By constructing an extremely proselytic and dogmatic religion, he managed to keep all of Europe under central authority for long after the decay of Rome.

Indeed this may be the point of thread initially. Unlike monkeys however, threads do evolve, and it's in your best interest to keep up with it, lest some of the other posters think you are 'retreating' in a sense.

Don't worry brother, I'm not judging you.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

You still fail to address my point.

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

You silly geese wouldn't even be talking about Luke, John and the gang if Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea hadn't concluded that they were the 4 most compatible to be used to run an organized religion, as well as to discredit the Gnostic texts.

I understood perfectly the point of your thread; I could just not care less to discuss it, and quite honestly, found commenting on Pastor's post to be of much greater interest. Nativity scenes do not interest me, nor does your opinion of them, nor does your opinion of those who enjoy them and believe the canonized Gospels to be the entire Word. You claim I missed the point: I saw it clearly - you spent several paragraphs espousing a childish resentment against something you willfully intended and asked no question of the reader to respond to. I do have a question for you: What makes you think I would have any response for such a firmly held opinion? What is there to discuss? Am I just supposed to say, "I believe differently, you're wrong and I'm not."?

as much as I hate quoting marx, he said it best "religion is the opiate of the masses"

And Scientific Naturalism is the Alcohol.

EDIT:
Deciding on either religion or lack thereof of your own free will is the Marijuana.

The whole "premise of the fucking religion" is not the accuracy of it's teachings but willingness to belief its accuracy.


Which makes it fundamentally flawed. To accept religion, you have to lower your guard of common sense and critical thinking, and believe in secondhand accounts (from people who were tripping balls on deleriants) of the supernatural? Sounds like a book I'd rather leave on the shelf.

^ Thank you. At least someone gets my point. Having blind faith in non-empirical evidence is not a virtue, and is at the very least a refuge to the weak-minded.

Which makes it fundamentally flawed. To accept religion, you have to lower your guard of common sense and critical thinking, and believe in secondhand accounts (from people who were tripping balls on deleriants) of the supernatural? Sounds like a book I'd rather leave on the shelf.

You do the same thing believing anything else. Evidence is interpreted.

You do the same thing believing anything else. Evidence is interpreted.

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

From what you've written, I assume you don't believe there is a heaven or hell. I agree with you. But I consider myself to be unfortunate in this, and can only hope that sometime in my life I'll find something I can believe in, to convince me that an afterlife does exist.

You don't need it.

When your time comes, you should just die.

It doesn't matter whether it be disease, age, or if your opponent is a lunatic... so long as your time comes.

Just die.

"It is easy to remove the mind from harping on the lost illusion of immortality. The disciplined intellect fears nothing and craves no sugar-plum at the day's end, but is content to accept life and serve society as best it may. Personally I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born, yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return? It is Elysium enough for me, at any rate."

- H.P. Lovecraft

People have the wrong idea. They think that even if their current life sucks, they have a better one waiting in the hereafter.

Normally these people would never awaken from their fantasies. They live trivial lives since they believe they have an endless one on hold. They proceed from this assumption. No matter how old they get they'll continue to tell theirselves "My real life hasn't started yet". "The real life is up next, so this life is trivial".

They continue to tell themselves that. And they age. Then die. And as the darkness takes them, only then may they realize that the life they lived was the real thing.

People don't live provisional lives, nor do they die provisional deaths.

That's a simple fact.

The problem is whether or not they realize this simple fact.

Whether they have truly awakened.

Killing all ones' religious beliefs may be a drastic remedy, but it can also be a good opportunity to wake them up. With this cognitive bloodbath, if they can break through this true "life" in the face of "death", they may awaken. The fog in their minds will lift. The gates of rebirth will open.

Of course... only if they can make it through.

For most people, it's out of the question. Their cultural influences, childhood indoctrination, peer pressure, and institutionalisation will not allow them to consider it. Their ego is to such an extent that to entertain the concept that they could truly, completely die and be existentially negated must not be allowed.

Out of all the creatures on the planet, humans are the only ones that have egos and recognize the fact that they will some day die. Various afterlife beliefs are merely a method of cognitive escapism to deceive oneself and ease the mental anguish that inevitably results from acknowledging ones' own inevitable demise.

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

Once again, BP makes a very valid point. In science, we use standards by which all things are analyzed and classified: among them the principal scientific method. No whoo-ha's, if's, and's or buts. Religion can contort whatever they deem as evidence of their deity as much as they like, but their fallacious logic will always show.

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

Once again, BP makes a very valid point. In science, we use standards by which all things are analyzed and classified: among them the principal scientific method. No whoo-ha's, if's, and's or buts. Religion can contort whatever they deem as evidence of their deity as much as they like, but their fallacious logic will always show.

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

Totse is going to die tomorrow and that weak old rebuttal on the choice of deciding to look at things in a different perspective as "childish" is the best you can do?

I would tell you to wake up but its too late for that.