By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

vlad321 on 26 April 2011
DélioPT said:

I was talking about hurt with words. "I doubt someone I know will just be "hurt" by words." Words do hurt. It depends on the person who says them and the context.
Picking up the idea above: "Again, if the truth hurts, then it's a problem with YOU, not the person who said the truth. You are laying the blame on the wrong person." Things aren`t that linear. And i can`t say whatever i want, they way that i want, because that may end up being disrespectful. Caring about what others feel no matter the subject is being respectful and tolerant.

 


See, I see respect and tolerance as I don't care and don't bother you about your beliefs, not "i can't show you the problems with your beliefs." Furthermore I never say you can say whatever you want, because that's just stupid, lies are very much a form of disrespect. You can say whetever you want as long as it is objectively true. Truth is never an insult. If someone doesn;t liek it, change it.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
DélioPT on 26 April 2011

The problem isn`t just that pointing out truths, it`s how people expose them. There are a lot of ways to say something and not all or good.

That`s why i said before there is a lack of respect and tolerance. It`s not just what was said, it was how it was said.
I have seen many people here just using mockery and subtle insults while discussing topics so i made that little post before.



Ssenkahdavic on 26 April 2011

Internet Toughguys



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

Rath on 26 April 2011
Ssenkahdavic said:

Internet Toughguys


Internet toughguys would be if they were saying they would beat each other up or something.



pizzahut451 on 26 April 2011
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:

No, it`s because it contains the words from God and Jesus, along with his life. And that is defining to those who believe. That`s why we call it sacred and not just very important or very meaningful.


Ok and King Arthur contains the words of Arthur and Lancelot and Merlin, among a bunch of others. Why isn't that sacred?


Because its made up by man. And people believe New Testament are the words of son of God .A God or higher power is something people believed in ever since their brain was developed enough to think. It all comes own to fatih, after all (weather you believe God is made up by man or higher power really exists)

Why is it made up, yet the bible isn't? I can also say the EXACT SAME thing about the New Testament, it's all made up. Whatever defense you apply to the bible right there, I can apply to king Arthur as well.

Also, ever since a brain was developed people have desired to find patterns, and understanding, of how nature acts. Given the primitive nature of people at that point, the only thing they could imagine is a higher diety. Now that we can actually observe and create pretty good models for many things in nature, we no longer need such an ignorant way of describing the world.


What exaclty is false about New Testament? Did you even read it? Stories like Jesus's resurection, I can see why peole find it doubtfull but the point of the New Testament are the teachings of christ and the morals of Christianity. Some stories in the Bible usually have a moral message, but they dont nececarly have to be true. Its the moral message that comes out of it that matters. Stuff like ''walking on water'' or ''truning water into wine'' are just symbolics and dont really matter if they are true or not. Its the God's word that matters. There is also historical evidence for the existance of Christ. As far as i know there is no evidence for Lancelot and Merlin, is there?  So Bible holds a lot more historical credit and value than King Arthur.

 


Then why do you give a shit about the bible and not just create your own morals. Morals based on logic and practicallity, not based on fear of an asshole god who will send you to hell if you don't follow his rules? If you admit that a lot of the things in the bible are bullshit, why can't you believe the others are as well? Why do you need untruths to tell you what you should think, when you can observe the world with your own two eyes and ears?

There is also historical evidence for the existance of a King Arthur. I am sure he may have had some knight named Lacelot and an advisor named Merlin. SO no, the bible has jsut as much validity as King Arthur. I may be mistaken, but Robin Hood may have been based on a real band of robbers too, I'll have to look into that.

Edit: Also feeding a huge group with one fish and bread. I will admit one thing that I have gathered from the bible, Jesus had an amazing sleigh of hand.

Edit 2: You are also basically stating that people who don't believe in god have no morals. Yet I dare you to go to a prison, and tell me just how disproportionate the amount of people who believe in a god are vs those who don't.

Wow, you finally showed your true colors. Nice. Im suprised it took you this long to snap tho. I follow Christ's morals because I think they are right. I believe Christ was the only person that was without sin on this planet, (as Bible tells us) and that is why I follow him. And I sure as hell dont follow him out of fear. Dont use that judgemental and generalazing crap on me. I never once admited things i Bible are bullshit, stop puting words in my mouth , and please use diffrent kind of language when discussing this matter. You completly missed my point on my entire post. I argued for the point and purpose of the New Testament, and that some of the stories there didnt have to happen in real life to be taken in consideration. The moral than comes out of it matters. The problem is, you see New Testament as the describtion of the religon itself, I see it as the book that shows us the way of living your life as a Christian. Christianity isnt about turning water into wine or Jesus walking on water, its about his teachings he preached upon the world. And THAT is what matters. 

And do you care to show us that evidence?  Arthur and his wizard Merlin exist in medievil poems and stories, folklore and literary invention where they fight dragons and unnatural monsters and enemies.  Unlike Jesus Christ who exists in actual files of human hisotry,  so much for that. I wont even dignify Robbin Hood with an answer...

 


I didn't realize I was hiding the fact I think any religion is full of bullshit and falseties. In fact I am fairly sure I wrote in one of my posts that all religions are wrong (read: bullshit).Whatever. Not like I excpected more respectful and reasonable response from you.

No matter how you define any religion (do you honestly think christinity is the only one that spouts about teachings and crap?I do not know, as I dont know much about other religions. And if other religions deliver simmilar message as Christianity, good for them, Im glad about that. Christianity doesnt need to be THE ONLY religion with the right message, in order for it to be a good religion.) the argument remains. Why are those teachings better than others What other teachings?King Arthur's ? What gives any validity of those teachings over any other teachings, from any religion or book ever written by humans?It doesnt give it vaildity OVER OTHERS, but it does give it vaildity as correct and righteous teachings.And that is important. As for others, well it depends what oother teachings are and what are they teaching to the poeple who follow that religion

As for king arthur, I think there is even a wikipedia entry about it with a whole bunch of evidence of how the story is based on some person or another.Yes, I've read the article on Wikipedia before I responded yesterday, and his historical determination isnt confirmed. There are lot of scholars who are disagree on his existance and non existance, so you cant say for sure he is as hisotrically vaild as Jesus Christ I just got my information from National Geographic.





Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 26 April 2011
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

A culture of inquiry and reason, does not deem this sane in the free market of ideas anymore. It used to be it didn't matter how stupid what you said was, if you followed it with "and that's my religion" it automatically demanded respect. In the information age this is no longer the case. Ideas and beliefs are meant to be kicked around, abused, held under the microscope, and then tossed out or changed if found faulty. If you tell someone that their views on corporate regulation are absurd, then it's ok. If you tell someone that you disagree with their views of lateral gene transfer and it's effects on long term evolution, you go to the drawing board. If you tell somebody that you think that a jewish zombie saving us from a talking snake that made a woman eat an apple is dumb, then they will scream persecution and bigotry.Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, but certain ideas have had a priviledged status for so long that ones that hold them think they are beyond criticism.

 

It doesn't help that alot of religions have built in persecution complexes, so if somebody says "that's dumb" the recepient can immediately respond "my beliefs said you would say that, so I'm even more right! Ridicule me some more, my beliefs said you would do that too! I'm being martyred!!!!". Saying an idea or belief is dumb is not bigotry or persecution however. African Americans were hung and burned on crosses, weren't given legal rights and suffered numerous atrocities at the hands of bigots. Somebody saying "Let's debate the merits of bible's morality." or "Taking a literalist view of the bible is ignorant at best." is not persecution. But again and again this is seen as "militant" behavior, or gross "intolerance". If you think that is militant and intolerant, consider yourself lucky enough to live in a time where that can be said with a straight face.

Also, I take exception to the idea that people single out christians. This is confirmation bias at it's finest. Statistically there are far more christians on this site than muslims, of course there is going to be more discussion of the bible than the koran. I certainly don't think the koran is any more sane than the bible, but opprotunities to debate that point are few and far between. In fact looking at the topic "what religion are you" 47 checked christian, 13 checked muslim, 2 hindus, 2 buddhists, and 116 non-religious. Now just from a mathematical standpoint why do you think there are more topics about debating christianity than say...the Vedas?

Also saying "people are only willing to pick on a religion of love and peace" while claiming people only attack christians shows considerable bigotry and prejudice towards other religions. Just pointing that out.


Apparently, atheism has its own definition of free speech: When I attack you, it's just criticism. When you attack me, you are practicing RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AAAARGGH THE EVIL THEOCRACY!!!

Remember how in one of my first posts here I mentioned that we don't know jack shit so any idea concieved by humans has nearly 0 probability of happening? Basically, yes atheists also have almost 0 chance probability of being right. However they have a nearly infinite more chance of being right than anyone who believes in a given religion. Why? It's simple really. For an atheist to be wrong there has to exist some creature that crated and controls the universe, literally ANY creature, not the creature as defined by christians or muslims or hindus. For a given religious person not to be right, their specific version of god has to be wrong, and religion's definition of god are very specific.

So basically, both are wrong, it's just that the religious person is a hell of a lot more wrong than an atheist.


Not only does that post have absoulutely nothing to do with my post but its also incredibly false. In Abrahamic religons, God is the same for Jews, Muslims and Christinas, they all believe in the same God.Muhammed himself said so, Jeusus as well, and both of their religions came from Judism. So abrahamic religions covers 3.5 billion faiths on Earth. Hindus dont believe in God, they believe in Gods, and as far as I know, they dont believe in Hell either.They believe in reincarnation. So that covers 800 million faiths . Budhists also dont believe in Hell, so that covers 1.3 billion faiths. Most of other insignificant religions (such as traditional african or south/north american religons) dont beleive in afterlife, rather they believe in a spirit living on Earth in some form /at least the religions I've heard about on Discovery channel) so that covers the rest of faiths. Anything else I missed? I think I coverd 95% of religous world on Earth, correct me If i am wrong.


What point are you making? That what the majority thinks is correct? Do you want me to draw you a graph as to why, relative to each other not in the grand scheme of things, atheists are just less wrong than religious people? There is a larger amount of infinite things that could have happened that aren't a being like the jewish god, than there are infinite amount of things that could have happened that do involve a being.

Edit: Forgot how my last sentence started a tthe end, fixed now.


No, my point is, (you'd think it would be obvious by looking at your last sentence) that ''Hell' is a concept that was adopted by Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judism and Islam) and that Hell is pretty much non existan in today's non-abrahamic religions, and as such, a religious person isnt likely to go to Hell for worshiping a false God.

''Jewish'' God is the same like '#christian'' and ''islamic'' God



vlad321 on 26 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:


I didn't realize I was hiding the fact I think any religion is full of bullshit and falseties. In fact I am fairly sure I wrote in one of my posts that all religions are wrong (read: bullshit).Whatever. Not like I excpected more respectful and reasonable response from you.

No matter how you define any religion (do you honestly think christinity is the only one that spouts about teachings and crap?I do not know, as I dont know much about other religions. And if other religions deliver simmilar message as Christianity, good for them, Im glad about that. Christianity doesnt need to be THE ONLY religion with the right message, in order for it to be a good religion.) the argument remains. Why are those teachings better than others What other teachings?King Arthur's ? What gives any validity of those teachings over any other teachings, from any religion or book ever written by humans?It doesnt give it vaildity OVER OTHERS, but it does give it vaildity as correct and righteous teachings.And that is important. As for others, well it depends what oother teachings are and what are they teaching to the poeple who follow that religion

As for king arthur, I think there is even a wikipedia entry about it with a whole bunch of evidence of how the story is based on some person or another.Yes, I've read the article on Wikipedia before I responded yesterday, and his historical determination isnt confirmed. There are lot of scholars who are disagree on his existance and non existance, so you cant say for sure he is as hisotrically vaild as Jesus Christ I just got my information from National Geographic.



Ah "whatever," the answer of a person with a defeated argument.

I think you missed the point. I was asking how you determined what the right message is. You say Christianity doesn't have to be the only one with the right message, well, what makes the messages in the bible "the right messages?"

There are many other teachings, for instance to Aztecs you were definitely going to their version of hell unless you died in a few very specific way, one of which was being sacrificed to gods. Why is their message of "I need to be sacrificed to a god" not right? Why does it depend on what the other teachings are for them to be valid? What information do you have that is more valid than theirs? Again, substitute anything for Aztec beliefs, even several fairy tales work, and all my questions still hold.

In your own words: " it does give it vaildity as correct and righteous teachings"  what exactly is that first "it?"

Finally, only the majority of biblical scholars believe Jesus existed. There are still plenty historians who aren't sure either. Just as the case of Arthur. He may have existed, he may not have.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 on 26 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

A culture of inquiry and reason, does not deem this sane in the free market of ideas anymore. It used to be it didn't matter how stupid what you said was, if you followed it with "and that's my religion" it automatically demanded respect. In the information age this is no longer the case. Ideas and beliefs are meant to be kicked around, abused, held under the microscope, and then tossed out or changed if found faulty. If you tell someone that their views on corporate regulation are absurd, then it's ok. If you tell someone that you disagree with their views of lateral gene transfer and it's effects on long term evolution, you go to the drawing board. If you tell somebody that you think that a jewish zombie saving us from a talking snake that made a woman eat an apple is dumb, then they will scream persecution and bigotry.Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, but certain ideas have had a priviledged status for so long that ones that hold them think they are beyond criticism.

 

It doesn't help that alot of religions have built in persecution complexes, so if somebody says "that's dumb" the recepient can immediately respond "my beliefs said you would say that, so I'm even more right! Ridicule me some more, my beliefs said you would do that too! I'm being martyred!!!!". Saying an idea or belief is dumb is not bigotry or persecution however. African Americans were hung and burned on crosses, weren't given legal rights and suffered numerous atrocities at the hands of bigots. Somebody saying "Let's debate the merits of bible's morality." or "Taking a literalist view of the bible is ignorant at best." is not persecution. But again and again this is seen as "militant" behavior, or gross "intolerance". If you think that is militant and intolerant, consider yourself lucky enough to live in a time where that can be said with a straight face.

Also, I take exception to the idea that people single out christians. This is confirmation bias at it's finest. Statistically there are far more christians on this site than muslims, of course there is going to be more discussion of the bible than the koran. I certainly don't think the koran is any more sane than the bible, but opprotunities to debate that point are few and far between. In fact looking at the topic "what religion are you" 47 checked christian, 13 checked muslim, 2 hindus, 2 buddhists, and 116 non-religious. Now just from a mathematical standpoint why do you think there are more topics about debating christianity than say...the Vedas?

Also saying "people are only willing to pick on a religion of love and peace" while claiming people only attack christians shows considerable bigotry and prejudice towards other religions. Just pointing that out.


Apparently, atheism has its own definition of free speech: When I attack you, it's just criticism. When you attack me, you are practicing RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AAAARGGH THE EVIL THEOCRACY!!!

Remember how in one of my first posts here I mentioned that we don't know jack shit so any idea concieved by humans has nearly 0 probability of happening? Basically, yes atheists also have almost 0 chance probability of being right. However they have a nearly infinite more chance of being right than anyone who believes in a given religion. Why? It's simple really. For an atheist to be wrong there has to exist some creature that crated and controls the universe, literally ANY creature, not the creature as defined by christians or muslims or hindus. For a given religious person not to be right, their specific version of god has to be wrong, and religion's definition of god are very specific.

So basically, both are wrong, it's just that the religious person is a hell of a lot more wrong than an atheist.


Not only does that post have absoulutely nothing to do with my post but its also incredibly false. In Abrahamic religons, God is the same for Jews, Muslims and Christinas, they all believe in the same God.Muhammed himself said so, Jeusus as well, and both of their religions came from Judism. So abrahamic religions covers 3.5 billion faiths on Earth. Hindus dont believe in God, they believe in Gods, and as far as I know, they dont believe in Hell either.They believe in reincarnation. So that covers 800 million faiths . Budhists also dont believe in Hell, so that covers 1.3 billion faiths. Most of other insignificant religions (such as traditional african or south/north american religons) dont beleive in afterlife, rather they believe in a spirit living on Earth in some form /at least the religions I've heard about on Discovery channel) so that covers the rest of faiths. Anything else I missed? I think I coverd 95% of religous world on Earth, correct me If i am wrong.


What point are you making? That what the majority thinks is correct? Do you want me to draw you a graph as to why, relative to each other not in the grand scheme of things, atheists are just less wrong than religious people? There is a larger amount of infinite things that could have happened that aren't a being like the jewish god, than there are infinite amount of things that could have happened that do involve a being.

Edit: Forgot how my last sentence started a tthe end, fixed now.


No, my point is, (you'd think it would be obvious by looking at your last sentence) that ''Hell' is a concept that was adopted by Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judism and Islam) and that Hell is pretty much non existan in today's non-abrahamic religions, and as such, a religious person isnt likely to go to Hell for worshiping a false God.

''Jewish'' God is the same like '#christian'' and ''islamic'' God


Ok, now I am sure you are missing the point completely. So each person goes to whatever he believes in? If smoeone believes in witches and magic and warlocks, then he will go to whatever afterlife he believes in?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

pizzahut451 on 26 April 2011
Jumpin said:

Atheists bash Christians because they do not understand what a Christian is. Their idea of a Christian is the American warlike neo-conservative nationalist who focusses on the Jewish part of the bible, and almost not at all on the Christian part.

Christianity at its core is a very liberal religion, the new testament is full of statements of rebellion against elites and the irrational beliefs of the old testament. It is a book which praises openess and is against nationalism (It was against the idea of a chosen people). Lastly, it is full of pro-social messages, the opposite of the libertarian ideology of the neoconservatives of the US.

I think a lot of Christians (primarilly American) and atheists have a very incorrect view of Christianity and the early Christ cult movements that started it. Too many people do not understand the bible is from the Roman era, an era where fable was the key story telling element - and instead they see it as history. Another factor is that most of the bible was cut as heresy by the government and Bishops under Constantine I. In my opinion, the bible should be read from a secular standpoint, as a book of fables; not as a history. I don't believe Jesus was a real person, but a character; a personification of the idea of removing beliefs from one's mind, and becoming a more open and caring person.

I also do not believe that the old testament should be payed much attention to in Christianity - it is not that type of religion.  The old testament came from a Jewish nationalistic history - they are the chosen people by their religion; whereas Christianity is based on mystical and Hellenized philosophical Jewish thought.


AMAZING POST: I agree with everything you said, except the bolded part on Jesus Christ.



pizzahut451 on 26 April 2011
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

A culture of inquiry and reason, does not deem this sane in the free market of ideas anymore. It used to be it didn't matter how stupid what you said was, if you followed it with "and that's my religion" it automatically demanded respect. In the information age this is no longer the case. Ideas and beliefs are meant to be kicked around, abused, held under the microscope, and then tossed out or changed if found faulty. If you tell someone that their views on corporate regulation are absurd, then it's ok. If you tell someone that you disagree with their views of lateral gene transfer and it's effects on long term evolution, you go to the drawing board. If you tell somebody that you think that a jewish zombie saving us from a talking snake that made a woman eat an apple is dumb, then they will scream persecution and bigotry.Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, but certain ideas have had a priviledged status for so long that ones that hold them think they are beyond criticism.

 

It doesn't help that alot of religions have built in persecution complexes, so if somebody says "that's dumb" the recepient can immediately respond "my beliefs said you would say that, so I'm even more right! Ridicule me some more, my beliefs said you would do that too! I'm being martyred!!!!". Saying an idea or belief is dumb is not bigotry or persecution however. African Americans were hung and burned on crosses, weren't given legal rights and suffered numerous atrocities at the hands of bigots. Somebody saying "Let's debate the merits of bible's morality." or "Taking a literalist view of the bible is ignorant at best." is not persecution. But again and again this is seen as "militant" behavior, or gross "intolerance". If you think that is militant and intolerant, consider yourself lucky enough to live in a time where that can be said with a straight face.

Also, I take exception to the idea that people single out christians. This is confirmation bias at it's finest. Statistically there are far more christians on this site than muslims, of course there is going to be more discussion of the bible than the koran. I certainly don't think the koran is any more sane than the bible, but opprotunities to debate that point are few and far between. In fact looking at the topic "what religion are you" 47 checked christian, 13 checked muslim, 2 hindus, 2 buddhists, and 116 non-religious. Now just from a mathematical standpoint why do you think there are more topics about debating christianity than say...the Vedas?

Also saying "people are only willing to pick on a religion of love and peace" while claiming people only attack christians shows considerable bigotry and prejudice towards other religions. Just pointing that out.


Apparently, atheism has its own definition of free speech: When I attack you, it's just criticism. When you attack me, you are practicing RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AAAARGGH THE EVIL THEOCRACY!!!

Remember how in one of my first posts here I mentioned that we don't know jack shit so any idea concieved by humans has nearly 0 probability of happening? Basically, yes atheists also have almost 0 chance probability of being right. However they have a nearly infinite more chance of being right than anyone who believes in a given religion. Why? It's simple really. For an atheist to be wrong there has to exist some creature that crated and controls the universe, literally ANY creature, not the creature as defined by christians or muslims or hindus. For a given religious person not to be right, their specific version of god has to be wrong, and religion's definition of god are very specific.

So basically, both are wrong, it's just that the religious person is a hell of a lot more wrong than an atheist.


Not only does that post have absoulutely nothing to do with my post but its also incredibly false. In Abrahamic religons, God is the same for Jews, Muslims and Christinas, they all believe in the same God.Muhammed himself said so, Jeusus as well, and both of their religions came from Judism. So abrahamic religions covers 3.5 billion faiths on Earth. Hindus dont believe in God, they believe in Gods, and as far as I know, they dont believe in Hell either.They believe in reincarnation. So that covers 800 million faiths . Budhists also dont believe in Hell, so that covers 1.3 billion faiths. Most of other insignificant religions (such as traditional african or south/north american religons) dont beleive in afterlife, rather they believe in a spirit living on Earth in some form /at least the religions I've heard about on Discovery channel) so that covers the rest of faiths. Anything else I missed? I think I coverd 95% of religous world on Earth, correct me If i am wrong.


What point are you making? That what the majority thinks is correct? Do you want me to draw you a graph as to why, relative to each other not in the grand scheme of things, atheists are just less wrong than religious people? There is a larger amount of infinite things that could have happened that aren't a being like the jewish god, than there are infinite amount of things that could have happened that do involve a being.

Edit: Forgot how my last sentence started a tthe end, fixed now.


No, my point is, (you'd think it would be obvious by looking at your last sentence) that ''Hell' is a concept that was adopted by Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judism and Islam) and that Hell is pretty much non existan in today's non-abrahamic religions, and as such, a religious person isnt likely to go to Hell for worshiping a false God.

''Jewish'' God is the same like '#christian'' and ''islamic'' God


Ok, now I am sure you are missing the point completely. So each person goes to whatever he believes in? If smoeone believes in witches and magic and warlocks, then he will go to whatever afterlife he believes in?


No, God damn it. The concept of Hell is extremly rare in non abrahamic religions.