12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife
invite response
2014 Jan 9, 4:42am 92,293 views 428 comments
« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 of 428 Next » Last » Search these comments
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 9:50am
You do know that Clovis converted to Christianity in 496 and what followed was 1000yrs of dark ages, right?
No. Clovis converted to Catholicism. There were quite few other branches of Christianity, such as Arianism, at that time. The conversion process took a few centuries, both before and after Clovis. The Dark Ages ended a couple hundred years after Clovis, not 1000yrs. Trade and commerce started to thrive in Western Europe by the 8th century; big cities and market centers emerged in the 9th and 10th century.
BS. Most of Europe converted to Christianity before Islamic invasions in the mid-7th century and the dark ages ended with the renaissance in the 14th century, with the rediscovery of arts, sciences and the rest of the classical civilization that were forgotten (and mostly forbidden). The dark ages were a period of obscurantism based on religion that contributed to widespread misery and slow human progress.
BS. Most of Europe converted to Christianity before Islamic invasions in the mid-7th century and the dark ages ended with the renaissance in the 14th century, with the rediscovery of arts, sciences and the rest of the classical civilization that were forgotten (and mostly forbidden). The dark ages were a period of obscurantism based on religion that contributed to widespread misery and slow human progress.
That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.
BTW, if you think religion held back Western Europe from 5th century to 14th century, how the heck would you explain the prosperity of Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Empire during that time period?
Then you did not meet the particular Agnostics who leave for ambiguity for those other deities. You may as well have said you never met a person who spoke Lapland dialect, Dodecanese dialect, or Chiachihuacan dialect.
I would love to be pointed to an agnostic who does leave room for these.
I for one am. I don't know which one of them I will meet after I die, or some kind of holy multiplicity (a word play on trinity), or even aliens or smurfs.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 10:00am
That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.
Markets? Show me the science, infrastructures, laws, institutions, medicine, life expectancy, arts, quality of life during the dark ages.
It's called the dark ages for a reason.
That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.
Markets? Show me the science, infrastructures, laws, institutions, medicine, life expectancy, arts, quality of life during the dark ages.
It's called the dark ages for a reason.
It's was originally called "the dark ages" mostly because of a lack of court historians writing history documents for latter historians to read them.
Science, infrastructure, laws, medicines, life expectancies, etc. etc. are all brought to you fundamentally by the market place. If you want physical manifestation, you can look to the Cathedral building craze in the 9th and 10th century. Those buildings took generations to build! It took a seriously prosperous society to build them. Universities like Paris and Oxford were built established around that time too.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 10:04am
You are kidding yourself if you think those alcohol drinking brothel hopping young men (assuming they were in the planes at all) were religious, or did it for religious reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/r25alb0_xUk
Yeah, religion is fucking great.
Yeah, religion is fucking great.
There were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!
Honey, CO2 levels causes global temperatures to rise as shown in the links above. The CO2 rises are entirely the result of humans burning fossil fuels as shown in the above video. The case is closed. The jury has already returned a guilty verdict.
No they did not. Only a correlation was shown between CO2 level and global warming . . . and if you look more closely than what was presented in your links, you'd notice temperature rise came before CO2 rise.
Then after that correlation, the scammers quickly moved onto focusing on CO2 rise instead of temperature rise.
As the great Richard Feynman once said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Any person who lies about climate change is not only risking hundreds of millions of lives, but is also wrecking the economy and should have no say in public policy and law. Pollution and climate change are bad economics.
You would have had a good career as a temple priest in Azteca, demanding the ritual murder in order for the sun to rise the next day.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 10:14am
Yeah, religion is fucking great.
There were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!
Dude, one, you clearly haven't taken the time to watch the video and therefore have no basis to respond to the comment. Your response literally took less time than watching half the video.
Two, stating that atheism is an evil philosophy because Stalin and Mao are atheist is as ridiculous as stating Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever because they worn mustaches just like Hitler and Stalin did.
See that thread for more details. Stalin and Mao were evil because they were power crazed, not because they were atheists. The 9/11 hijackers flew into building because of their religion. The Westboro Baptist bigots are gay bashers because of their religion.
There is nothing in atheism or rationality that supports the evils of Stalin and Mao. There is much inherent in religion that supports the evil of the holocaust, the North American genocides, the Spanish Inquisition, and thousands of years of rape and murder including today's honor killings. Big difference.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dEQuW2v6U2o
This hatred and bigotry is intrinsic to religion.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 10:18am
Shintoism is a religion. It promises honors and (worse than death) humiliation in after-life.
BS. Shintoism has no such systematic punishment promises about afterlife.
Taoism doesn't either.
Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.
Like in genesis, the knowledge of good and evil pretty much excludes you from paradise.
marcus
2014 Jan 29, 10:21am
IT's extremely sad, whatever her reasons were.
Her reasons aren't in question. We know what they were. She believed in heaven. She thought her dad was in heaven. She thought she would see her dad in heaven if she died. She was wrong about all three things.
Don't try to change the facts. There is no doubt that she ended her life because of her false belief in an afterlife.
A couple weeks later, same thread.
He used even weaker reasoning to prove that one phrase to her mother (with the antecedent "don't feel bad Mom"), is proof that the girl was of sound mind and made a rational decision to kill herself for the purpose of being with her father in the afterlife, actually knowing that she would be.
He actually believes he has proven this ?
He actually believes he has proven this ?
My position, which no one has been able to refute, is that anyone who believes the girl's death is tragic does not truly believe in the afterlife. Bashing me doesn't refute this position.
I don't believe in an afterlife, I'm quite sure humanity doesn't either, from what he's said.
What a difference a couple weeks make. Now I get it. You don't gracefully lose an argument you just adjust your position to something you think you can defend.
Although even this later (totally different) position is hard to defend. You don't think that say Catholics for example think that death is often tragic ? Especially death of a child ? If you were right, you are only proving that truth be told they don't really believe very strongly in an afterlife, because they all are going to believe that death of a child is tragic. Regardless of whether they say some BS like "she's in a better place."
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 10:29am
Science, infrastructure, laws, medicines, life expectancies, etc. etc. are all brought to you fundamentally by the market place.
Yeah, it's well known that all Leonardo, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Bach, Descartes, Newton, Mozart and even Einstein did was all driven by the market place and its requirements.
They all made huge profits out of it.
marcus
2014 Jan 29, 10:32am
Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.
In my opinion these are closer to philosophy than religion, since there isn't a deity involved per se. THe chinese get religious about it, with added rituals and superstitions, but at the core I don't see these as all that similar to Chritianity, or Islam, or even Hinduism for that matter.
I guess in some variants of Buddhism, Buddha is a deity. But certainly not in Zen Buddhism.
By the way, Jews don't believe in an after life, and that is clearly more of a religion than Buddism or Taoism.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 10:42am
It took a seriously prosperous society to build them. Universities like Paris and Oxford were built established around that time too.
No it took societies sacrificing everything they had to build cathedrals.
What was taught during dark ages was severely limited to what the church would allow i.e. not much. Many ideas were simply forbidden by religious authorities.
Dude, one, you clearly haven't taken the time to watch the video and therefore have no basis to respond to the comment. Your response literally took less time than watching half the video.
I had seen that video before.
Two, stating that atheism is an evil philosophy because Stalin and Mao are atheist is as ridiculous as stating Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever because they worn mustaches just like Hitler and Stalin did.
Nope. I never said Atheism is an evil philosophy. What I did say was that religious is not the (sole) reason why people do evil. Even those without religion, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are quite capable of evil.
There is nothing in atheism or rationality that supports the evils of Stalin and Mao. There is much inherent in religion that supports the evil of the holocaust, the North American genocides, the Spanish Inquisition, and thousands of years of rape and murder including today's honor killings. Big difference.
The Holocaust had nothing to do with religion unless you think believers in Judaism brought it upon themselves. In fact, the Holocaust was carried out on a Social Darwinist ground. North American genocide was once again not on religious ground; it was simply a land grab; in fact, many tribes were spared after they were converted. Spanish Inquisition killed less people than the number of priests and nuns killed in the French Revolution alone, never mind the mass murder of religious people in the 20th century by government worshippers. Rape, murder and honor killing took place long before religion had anything to do with any of it. You are failing to recognize that religious texts condone some of the practices simply because those acts were already part of the tradition, just like the US Constitution condoned slavery, which was already in place, not US Constitution causing slavery.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 10:45am
Now I get it. You don't gracefully lose an argument you just adjust your position to something you can defend.
I am most willing to change my position should a logical argument or new information warrant doing so. However, I have not changed my position in this thread because no one has given me a descent reason to do so.
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the girl's letter in the original post. You're arguments that she's a secret atheist who killed herself to promote some global atheist agenda is stupid and has no foundation in reality.
It is also the case that this particular girl's motive, although illustrative of the negative consequences of the afterlife lie, are not necessary to demonstrate the fact that the afterlife lie makes killing oneself and others a perfectly rational and moral decision.
Neither you nor anyone else has even addressed the fact that if the Christian afterlife were real, then killing babies before they could sin is a moral imperative. The contradiction between accepting the premise and rejecting the necessary conclusion of the premise remains unchallenged.
Nonetheless, there is nothing ungraceful about changing one's position should greater understanding or knowledge of a subject matter come to light. The fact that arguments are to you about who is right rather than what is right is your weakness, not mine. I've always held the position that the messenger is irrelevant.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 10:45am
In my opinion these are closer to philosophy than religion
Well then I let you argue with Reality on his thesis below, and as to why societies in the east didn't collapse:
Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly.
BS. Shintoism has no such systematic punishment promises about afterlife.
Taoism doesn't either.
Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.
Like in genesis, the knowledge of good and evil pretty much excludes you from paradise.
You are confusing the theoretical tenets with the marketing points to the masses. In fact, most successful religions have two versions: one is marketed to the masses to make them behave, then another set of tenets marketed to the inner circle of rulers so they are prepared to break the rules.
Science, infrastructure, laws, medicines, life expectancies, etc. etc. are all brought to you fundamentally by the market place.
Yeah, it's well known that all Leonardo, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Bach, Descartes, Newton, Mozart and even Einstein did was all driven by the market place and its requirements.
They all made huge profits out of it.
They were all paid to do what they excelled at because the thriving market place allowed them to be freed from being a self-sufficient farmers working their ass off on their plots of family farms! Even more importantly, the society had to be advanced and sophisticated enough to have enough leisure people to enjoy and promote what they created!
It's just like, haven't you wondered why there had never been great baseball players, great soccer players, great basketball players or great football players before the mid-19th to early 20th century? It's not because people couldn't run or jump before then, but because the market place had not developed enough to enable professional sports!
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 10:57am
I had seen that video before.
I doubt you are telling the truth base on your response. I also doubt that you watched the global warming video based on your response to that which completely ignored the plethora of physical evidence showing that global warming is man made.
You don't strike me as a person who actually critically reviews opposing evidence.
Nope. I never said Atheism is an evil philosophy. What I did say was that religious is not the (sole) reason why people do evil. Even those without religion, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are quite capable of evil.
1. Remember these words?
Reality says
There were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!
They strongly imply that atheism is responsible for the "biggest mass murders" in history.
2. No one has ever argued that atheists are incapable of being evil. Atheists are free on one of the greatest causes of evil, religion, but that does not imply that they are free of all causes of evil. Thus your argument is a Straw Man.
3. As I have proven beyond any doubt, atheism is not the cause of the evils of Stalin, Mao, or Pol anymore than mustaches are.
4. The evil done by people who are coincidentally atheists does not mitigate the evil done directly in the name of religion. To argue that is equivalent to saying that rape should be condone because some people who drive red cars drive drunk. You are trying to relate to irrelevant things.
5. Although atheists are capable of evil, they are far less likely to commit evil. This has been statistically proven by prison populations. Atheism is also very strongly related to intelligence, education, and empathy, all of which are strongly negatively correlated with violence.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 10:58am
No they did not. Only a correlation was shown between CO2 level and global warming . . . and if you look more closely than what was presented in your links, you'd notice temperature rise came before CO2 rise.
Watch the fucking video.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/gIUN5ziSfNc
Don't bother commenting until you've watch the entire thing.
It took a seriously prosperous society to build them. Universities like Paris and Oxford were built established around that time too.
No it took societies sacrificing everything they had to build cathedrals.
That's ridiculous. Before the rise of the modern state, the government's and the church's ability to tax was quite limited. Market places thrived in the 9th and 10th century. Those big cathedrals were built in big market towns.
What was taught during dark ages was severely limited to what the church would allow i.e. not much. Many ideas were simply forbidden by religious authorities.
He who pays the bills calls the tunes. The very fact that so many young men could have the leisure time to be "educated" and trained to be essentially bureaucrats (in the church hirarchy, then often also government hirarchy as managers to assist hereditory owners) was indication that the economy was booming. Of course, having too many of them would bring bust later (in the 13-14th century), but that's a different story at a different time.
Watch the fucking video.
I'm not going to waste my time watching stupid video. The signal-to-noise ratio is simply too low in video format. Education by video produces morons (yes, I know you love that format; that's why you are a coding monkey instead of becoming a real engineer). If you have the transcript or screen play, I will read it; would take much less time.
I had seen that video before.
I doubt you are telling the truth base on your response. I also doubt that you watched the global warming video based on your response to that which completely ignored the plethora of physical evidence showing that global warming is man made.
You don't strike me as a person who actually critically reviews opposing evidence.
The video being discussed in that particular instance was on religion's link to terrorism, not AGW nonsense. I do critically evaluate evidence. I'm not gullible like you.
Nope. I never said Atheism is an evil philosophy. What I did say was that religious is not the (sole) reason why people do evil. Even those without religion, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are quite capable of evil.
1. Remember these words?
Reality saysThere were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!
They strongly imply that atheism is responsible for the "biggest mass murders" in history.
No they do not.
However, not having a counter-balancing force such as an independent church, the mass murdering governments did managed to proceed in their mass murdering ways much further without restraint.
2. No one has ever argued that atheists are incapable of being evil. Atheists are free on one of the greatest causes of evil, religion, but that does not imply that they are free of all causes of evil. Thus your argument is a Straw Man.
Then your argument religion causes evil falls apart. If people can do great evil without religion then what's the point of blaming religion?
3. As I have proven beyond any doubt, atheism is not the cause of the evils of Stalin, Mao, or Pol anymore than mustaches are.
Only in your own imagination. The Atheism promoted by those mass murderers removed a usual counter-balancing force from the society that would normally present as the alternative moral voice (like MLKJ's reliance on religion to combat unjust government enforced discrimination). Furthermore, relying on official Atheism to remove all existing religions enabled the promoulgation of personality cults, which was very much a driving force behind those biggest mass murders in human history.
4. The evil done by people who are coincidentally atheists does not mitigate the evil done directly in the name of religion. To argue that is equivalent to saying that rape should be condone because some people who drive red cars drive drunk. You are trying to relate to irrelevant things.
It has nothing to do with condoning. It just so happens that the blackest name in religiously based persecution, the Spanish Inquisition, involved the murder of less than 2,000 people over 100 years, whereas the atheistic mass murderers managed to kill 50,000,000+ in a decade or so!
5. Although atheists are capable of evil, they are far less likely to commit evil. This has been statistically proven by prison populations. Atheism is also very strongly related to intelligence, education, and empathy, all of which are strongly negatively correlated with violence.
Perhaps in a mostly religious society due to self-selection to be different (I doubt your statement even then). When Atheism is mainstream in a country, the morons and criminals are atheists too.
In my opinion these are closer to philosophy than religion
Well then I let you argue with Reality on his thesis below, and as to why societies in the east didn't collapse:
Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly.
Because the theoretical philosophy is not what's marketed to the masses. The masses were fed ancestral worship, reincarnation on good/bad behavior, etc. etc. There was a reason why much of the eastern religions were not in written scripture forms, but simply traditions.
Neither you nor anyone else has even addressed the fact that if the Christian afterlife were real, then killing babies before they could sin is a moral imperative. The contradiction between accepting the premise and rejecting the necessary conclusion of the premise remains unchallenged.
That's a ridiculous deduction. Who gave you the authority to carry out pre-crime judge/jury/executioner duty? Most people's sins do not warrant death penalty. Even if you know someone will grow up to be a murderer apriori, it would still be morally questionable for you to kill him at birth.
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Jan 29, 11:36am
That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.
Check out Bryan Ward-Perkins, who is taking on this revisionist reassessment comparing the Classical Era to the Dark Ages in terms of Economic Development, Population, etc.
The Book is "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization."
Bristol has 20,000 people in the 13th Century, it's the second largest city in England.
In comparison, modern Augusta, Maine has 19,000. Rome has half a million around 100AD, but only 20-40,000 in the 13th Century. In 100AD, Cologne (Colonia Augusta) is a frontier military city of the Roman Empire of 40,000 people. In the 13th Century, it's still the largest city in Germany, and only has 5000 more people. It's aqueducts and sewers still function, which probably explains it.
The Parthenon and other Pagan or Roman/Greek Public Sites like the Collesseum or the Circus of Constantinople, all built before the Collapse (hell, Parthenon is from the BC era), are immense and dwarf any Dark Age building in Western Europe. .
Then there's this.
We won't see any complexes like 16 waterwheels, emplaced in solid stone and fed by a multi-mile concrete aqueduct until the 1600s at least. This was built around 300AD towards the end of the Roman Empire in Arles, France.
marcus
2014 Jan 29, 11:42am
You're arguments that she's a secret atheist who killed herself to promote some global atheist agenda is stupid and has no foundation in reality.
This was an afterthought on one post and not serious, and you know that.
The fact that arguments are to you about who is right rather than what is right is your weakness, not mine. I've always held the position that the messenger is irrelevant.
Right...
Project much ?
I'll admit to be bothered by the person who so obviously continues to argue after they realize they are wrong. That is I take issue with the person in this case, because I so can not relate to either the emotion, the ego, or perhaps it's the immaturity that goes with such behavior.
And I want to say, "C'mon Man ! You're better than this."
Bristol has 20,000 people in the 13th Century, it's the second largest city in England.
In comparison, modern Augusta, Maine has 19,000. Rome has half a million around 100AD, but only 20-40,000 in the 13th Century.
20,000 people was a huge number for a town/city without aqueduct, simply due to sanitation problems rising with population density. Even London during Roman time only had about 35,000 people. Rome was the imperial capital of the entire western world during 100AD, but only a regional concern in the 13th century.
In 100AD, Cologne (Colonia Augusta) is a frontier military city of the Roman Empire of 40,000 people. In the 13th Century, it's still the largest city in Germany, and only has 5000 more people. It's aqueducts and sewers still function, which probably explains it.
It may well have had much less people during some of the time in between. It would be a huge mistake to linearize history.
The Parthenon and other Pagan or Roman/Greek Public Sites like the Collesseum or the Circus of Constantinople, all built before the Collapse (hell, Parthenon is from the BC era), are immense and dwarf any Dark Age building in Western Europe. .
Wrong. The Lincoln Cathedral in England (construction starting in the 11th century) was the tallest building in the world after taking over the title from the Great Pyramid of Giza, before losing the title to some other Cathedral in Europe.
BTW, if big tall building is your standard for civilization, can we then conclude that the Ancient Greek and Roman era was in the dark age between 2500BC Pyramid and the 11th century Lincoln Cathedral?
Y
2014 Jan 29, 12:37pm
You are obviously oblivious to what is going on around you.
* The speed of light has been broken.
* A bubble of space where no parity exists has been created.
The laws of physics are constantly changing. The bigger question is, why aren't you?
Regarding the laws of physics, they are being violated all the time.
You are obviously not conscious of what you are saying.
Y
2014 Jan 29, 12:43pm
Here is what I meant to say.
"The laws of physics as we understand them, are being violated all the time."
That's what happens when you type this shit on a cellphone...
Regarding the laws of physics, they are being violated all the time.
The laws of nature, by definition, are not violated. That is precisely why we call them natural laws.
Human understanding of these laws are constantly being improved,
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 12:47pm
Education by video produces morons
Yeah, that's a great reason to reject information from the Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council, the Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Systems Research Laboratory, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the Hadley Meteorological Center, the International Panel on Climate Change, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the National Academy of Science, NASA, the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, the National Climate Data Center, the National Hurricane Center, the National Research Council, and many other well respected scientific institutions.
They're no Wikipedia. How dare they use digital video and other 21st century technologies to inform the public. Anything not written on stone tablets is invalid.
You got some pretty fucked up criteria for acceptable information sources.
New Renter
2014 Jan 29, 12:47pm
The speed of light has been broken.
Nope!
A bubble of space where no parity exists has been created.
Maybe so or maybe they need to do a better job of cleaning their fiber optic cables.
The laws of physics are constantly changing.
No the laws of physics are not changing. Not at all. What might be changing is our MODELS of how those laws work.
Or maybe we just need to do a better job of validating the results.
Y
2014 Jan 29, 12:47pm
Ok.
Tell us how consciousness occurs.
Energy cannot be destroyed. Your brain runs on energy. Obviously the cells contained in the physical body "die" as humans describe it, but the energy contained within is simply transformed.
Yes, but energy isn't consciousness.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 12:49pm
The video being discussed in that particular instance was on religion's link to terrorism, not AGW nonsense. I do critically evaluate evidence. I'm not gullible like you.
That man wasn't a terrorist. The video demonstrates the irrationality that religious beliefs impose on people. You should watch it and learn.
Y
2014 Jan 29, 12:50pm
Sorry. Your material is dated.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html
who you gonna believe? Our allies across the pond, or the frozen fucks up north who designed the ACA website??
The speed of light has been broken.
Nope!
« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 of 428 Next » Last » Search these comments
A 12-year-old girl whose father died, takes her own life in order to see her father again. Of course, she does not get to see her father again because there is no afterlife. Sure, the lie of the afterlife might numb the pain of loss for a child, but if that child actually believes the lie, she might act on it as this poor girl did.
Now, this isn't about blame. It's about not repeating the same mistake. Stop telling children the lie about there being an afterlife. The lie does far more damage than good.
The Young Turks discuss this issue including the clause about suicide written to discourage people from offing themselves during their productive and taxable years to get to paradise sooner.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_uWMOZ0vaCY
All the false comfort in all of history that the lie of an afterlife offered is outweighed by this one girl's death. The tally is negative for this alone, and I doubt very much that this is the first time in history someone has wasted his or her life because of the afterlife lie. It's just the first indisputable proof we've seen.