I'm not denying or confirming anything about heaven. Heaven doesn't exist. Now stop harassing me. If you want to reply, reply to me once. Concisely. In a Single comment.

This shotgun argumentation is really just harassment. If you want me to read your words, write them once, but you reply and reply; insult me and threaten me with your death cult's version of an afterlife.

I'm here to debate, not to be harassed by an evangelist zealot who spams people with the same argument, and never actually listens to the response.

If you're not here to debate, fuck off. Otherwise, give me proof.

If that were really the case, then it wouldn't be difficult for you to prove it.

So please, I am waiting: Prove it.

No, I'm not trying to "replace" a god with anything; because I never had a god to begin with. When I wake up in the morning, I eat breakfast, listen to the radio, prepare lunch . . . there's no god there; there's no god in my life anywhere. So, there's nothing to replace because god doesn't do anything to begin with; god does not exist.

As for what death proves? I believe that when I die, I will be dead, and what that proves to me is that life is precious. I have a limited amount of time on this Earth to live, love and learn; so, we should not waste that time believing in things we cannot perceive.

When did I say I know everything? This is a ridiculous statement. Why would you even ask me, are you suggesting that you know everything? Because if you are, you're wrong, and if you aren't, you're a hypocrite; in fact, I don't need to know everything to know that your god does not exist. I don't even need to know half of everything.

See, the reason why I know your god does not exist, is because your god is the Judeo-Christian god, a god that utilizes magic, speaks through animals, transmits thoughts through fruit, professed to flood the world, denies the science of evolution, promotes his own benevolence whilst proposing slavery, rape, murder, genocide & gullibility.

Could something supernatural exist? Perhaps, maybe, but there's no reason for anyone to believe that magic exists until we know it does. Just as the Wright Brothers; For many centuries, everyone said that man couldn't fly. Now we know this isn't true, men can fly; but if you were to believe that before the flight of the Wright Brothers, it would have been stupid for a man to jump off a cliff in the hopes that he could soar.

The same is true of a god. Until we know that the supernatural exists, and we know how it works, blindly assuming that it is true without knowledge is just irrational.

Can men fly? Yes, but there's no reason to believe you can achieve it by jumping off the roof.

Does god exist? I don't know, but until you can prove that he does, there's no reason to believe he does when you read an ancient Hebrew book of fairytales.

No, I don't want you to prove hell for me, I want you to stop harassing people with your proselytizing. Now, if you want me to believe in hell, then you're going to have to prove it. Until then, I have every reason to believe that it doesn't exist.

Have you ever seen a person with brain damage? They get their head hurt, and their brain gets physically damaged in some way such that their mind is damaged. If you look up "anterograde" amnesia, you'll see several stories of people who have brain damage and as a result, can't form new memories.

Here's a video about a man named "Clive Wearing" with a 30 second memory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmzU47i2xgw

Since his accident, he can't remember anything new; whenever he sees his wife, he greets her as though he hasn't seen her in years, because to him he hasn't. This shows one of the many ways that our brain is who we are. When we die, the neurons of our brain stop firing and the meat of our head rots.

Just a part of this man's brain is damaged and he can't remember his own face, so why would I believe that after death, I would be able to think, remember and feel?

Or, in simplest terms, why would anyone believe that they would be alive after they die?

You're dying too, kiddo. The difference between you and me is that I think that life matters and death is meaningless.

You seem to be of the opinion that death is the only thing that matters and life is ultimately meaningless, since "life is on earth, but when you die you can go to heaven".

I'm sorry, but I don't want to join in your death cult.

Until you can prove that there is such a thing as a soul; that souls are immortal and that there's more than this reality upon which our souls can dwell after our bodies die, I am going to spend my life doing what good I can with other people.

If there is such a thing as a hell, I would more gladly burn than spend my life in the domineering presence of a vengeful, evil, hateful god that believes gullibility, fear and compliance are more important than education, co-operation and autonomy.

After all, if the kind of people that go to heaven are people like you, spending an eternity with you would be a hell to me.

More importantly, I don't blame god for anything, I don't believe in magic. There's no such thing as god, hell, magic, spirits or heaven. They are impossible. If you honestly think that magic is real, you will need to prove it before I can believe you, let alone pray to your god.

Because, first of all, there is no proof that the bible is an accurate record of history, and in fact there's a lot of proof that it isn't; and even some of the things in the bible which are true are still surrounded by things that aren't, so it casts anything written in the book with doubt.

Secondly, knowing that the bible was not written contemporaneously or even within 5 years of the events, even if there was a person called Jesus about which this phrase was written, there's no proof that this is an accurate transcription of what that person called Jesus actually said. It was merely written down in a book in a dead language and there's no proof that anyone actually said that.

Thirdly, the words as they are written are not actually that clear. How can a person be "truth and light"? Surely, these words are poetic, so when he says "there's no way unto the Father", what does that mean? One interpretation I would understand is that he means to say that, as he is the priest, and the only way to learn about what he's preaching is to listen. It's the same thing as a TV chef saying, "Do you want to bake a delicious pumpkin pie for Christmas? The only ways is to watch closely, don't change that channel!", I don't think these words are clear enough that they have to mean "believe me, or you can't meet my Dad".

Fourthly, even if I accepted that a person called Jesus actually did say that, exactly as it was transcribed, there's no reason why I would assume that the person was telling the truth. Even if they weren't lying, they could simply be mistaken, or they could be crazy, I have no reason to believe that just because a person says something, those words are true.

Fifthly, I don't believe in anything supernatural, so I can't feel threatened or expect "salvation", because I don't accept that we need salvation or that there is any such threat.

To me, you saying "why don't you believe, it says it in the book" is like me saying to you: Why don't you go to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry? There are seven books that talk about it. Just take the train to Scotland from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, you can learn magic! Why don't you believe me?

It really is that ridiculous to me.

You want to know what truth I followed? Okay.

I am pro-abortion, I believe that women should be able to have access to abortion; and I even believe that abortions should be bulk-billed [I'm Australian, that just means "government-funded"].

Now, my path that steered me to that decision had quite a few twists and turns, but for this debate, I will focus on three:

1. The knowledge that some women wish to have abortions.

I know this by speaking to women, by listening to women, feminist and otherwise, by my understanding of the economic, social and biological concerns of giving birth to and raising a child. In my opinion, I do not believe that a child whose mother "does not want them" will be raised in a healthy household.

Now, this lead me to the counter-point:

Women could just adopt their children out; abortion is unnecessary in the face of adoption.

I considered this point, and whilst it has some interesting points, it was dismissed by the affirmative case:

2. Childbirth is a dangerous, difficult, painful, disabling and occasionally scarring endeavour. It can even lead to suicide from post-partum depression and the hormonal imbalance caused by pregnancy. Forcing women to undergo this, against their will, is torturous.

If it was a simple case of laying an egg, I couldn't disagree with adoption, but pregnancy and childbirth (as a result of evolution) is a perilous and dangerous process, because of the size of a newborn baby's skull, and the energy required to create a living organism.

However, then I came to another counter-point: As much as a woman may suffer, any moral person believes in the greater good, or the lesser evil. Since abortion kills the unborn child, the death of the child outweighs any suffering to its mother.

Now, I don't quite agree with this, after all, you can't force a dead person to donate their kidney, even if it would save another person's life, so it seems wrong that we can force a woman to rent out her womb to an unborn life against her will. But that alone didn't convince me, what did was the facts. I went to Wikipedia, embryology websites and neurology websites, and discovered . . .

3. The foetal brain is non-functional before the first trimester; it feels no pain, it cannot think and it has no life of its own.

It is illegal to perform an abortion on a living foetus after the 24th week (at the latest), and most abortions are performed in the first and second weeks. The only abortions allowed after the 24th week are done in the case of stillbirth, to prevent infection.

Knowing this, and since we know that the seat of consciousness is the brain, it is impossible to say that a foetus suffers by being aborted, and in fact, it is for all intents and purposes, braindead. during the first trimester, meaning that it is little more than a parasitic growth. It's not life, by any definition I would grant.

This is what lead me to my pro-abortion position. So long as abortions are performed legally, I see no reason why a woman should be disallowed from having one if that is her choice.

What you're doing right now, is known in debating circles as a shotgun argumentation or the "gish gallop", responding to a single comment with four replies?

That is incredibly dishonest of you to do, considering that this website grades all following comments as a reply but you're only replying to one single comment. In the future, if you reply to me, don't waste my time making four comments, reply with one, because your comments become more inane the more I read them.

Also, if it sounds like I am a "parrot" repeating the same arguments, it is because the arguments people use against you are still valid. There's no need to invent "new" arguments, when past arguments are still just as factual; and when you haven't even refuted a single one of the old ones it's pretty disingenuous to make an association fallacy between my arguments and theirs.

Even so, I don't care what other people said, I'm talking to you. And I'm saying to you "no, what you're saying doesn't make sense. So, I don't accept that you could convert anyone to your outdated, anti-intellectual religion.

Who said that I had the right to live? I never said that I have the right to live, I have the desire to live. And again, you need to prove that hell exists before you can cite it as any kind of argument for your position.

Well, . . . I mean, sure, you can cite hell, but it doesn't actually mean anything to me until you prove it; I reject the premise outright.

I am not thinking I can "get out" of anything. I know that your god does not exist. As for whether I am "all that", I don't think so, but I do appear to be more rational than you.

I know this is difficult for a Christian to understand, but I don't get all of my knowledge from some ancient book, I actually think for myself.