Talk:Heaven

Somewhen in the afterlife
Some Vikings from Valhalla decide to go a-roving (as they did in life) and find themselves in Christian heaven.

What happens next?

Summerland seems better than conventional heaven. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A full re-edit
What is this dreadful piece of crap you call an article? It reads more like something from Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Do you really think so little of religion that you slough it off rather than giving it a proper look?

My rework of this pathetic article was an attempt to help meet what this Wiki actually is supposed to be: rational. Lord knows you wouldn't want to be hypocrites, like I am. Snark's one thing; stupidity is another. And this article is all snark and absolutely lacking information.

Now, if you want to be "Snark Wiki", that's your prerogative. But if you want to be heard from all logical sides - including reasonable, logical Christians such as myself - you are either going to have to listen to my arguments and refute them, or explain statements such as:


 * "one can do nothing but constantly and mindlessly worship the Christian god."

What does this mean? What does "constantly and mindlessly" worshiping look like? And if Heaven doesn't really exist, would you care to provide good reason for why it does not? I gave many good reasons in the last edit. Indeed, I have tried to write from your perspective. But, unlike the previous editor, I have tried to do so while considering heaven a logical possibility, as any open-minded agnostic ought to - unless, of course, he knows God doesn't exist.

174.19.71.25 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was pretty bad. I've looked over your edit again, and realized that much of it was better than the original. I've incorporated (some of) your ideas here. What are your thoughts? 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, a thousand times over. The article is MUCH improved. I give you a great deal of credit for improving it. I hope you won't mind if I tweak it a bit here and there - nothing serious. You did a good job with the material you have. 174.19.71.25 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. If you wish to continue adding quality edits, please consider registering. 02:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, FCP. But, if it's all the same to you, I think I prefer to remain anonymous. 174.19.85.208 (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An IP address is less anonymous than a name, unless you prefer pointlessly visiting all websites with a dynamic fake IP-- Mie kal  07:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you already know all you need to know about me, then. 174.19.93.252 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have heated things up with an additional 666 characters! Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this article shouldn't even exist! It's just for neckbeard atheist circlejerk at this point on 24 April 2023, eight years after the last comment.
 * And instead of creating a new topic, you thought it was a better idea to respond to a very old post. You fundies have any proof that heaven exists, besides the usual "EBIL Ath31sts11!1!1!" bullshit? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Genitalia
Do people have genitals in heaven? This shit is important. --Annanoon (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * … as important as how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand 24 (angels on a pin).
 * Who would not find 'most of the people sent to Hell' a more interesting bunch than the milk-and-honey bunch who ended up in Christian Heaven? Anna Livia (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

a heretical view on Heaven having a view of suffering of the damned in Hell
It's mine... but I would think that watching someone like Adolf Hitler suffer torment in Hell would get very old very fast. I would expect those in Hell to endure a particularly nasty torment, seeing the delights of those in Heaven. This too would get tiring but it would not end. One might be compelled to witness what is denied one while one endures an unending physical torment (burning, caustic bath, being eaten alive).Pbrower2a (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

'Hell is the absence of God' seems to be unsupported in the Bible
It's the sort of thing that reeks of post-hoc apologetics. The contentious line says that the claim isn't like anything in the Bible, and from a cursory check that seems to be true. The closest I can find is 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might," but even in that verse the absence of God is clearly an afterthought. I don't think RW is the place to give undue credence to religious apologetics, particularly when they're used to paper over the foulest implications of a particular faith. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this an argument specifically for eternal damnation, or specifically against "seperation of God"? I do not expect RationalWiki to know a thing about every nook and cranny of such a convoluted thought world, just enough to make its point.--Spoony (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Biblical references to hell I can find are very, very clearly all about the punishment and the fire and the torment, and there's nothing wrong with this article pointing that out to demonstrate the broken reasoning behind 'hell is the absence of God' as a concept. If the snippet you removed claimed that the concept wasn't a part of Christian thinking then yes, that would be wrong, because it plainly is. The snippet doesn't say that, though. Pointing out how theology has been built up in a way that directly contradicts its supposedly infallible source is an old game, but a valid game - particularly given the propensity of modern evangelicals to equate whatever ass-pull theology they cook up with the Bible. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not educated on the topic. It is part of Christian thinking but "very very clearly" to say the least is about as rediculous as saying we "very very clearly" have to cut off our hands. We can get into the meanings of "eternity/aionos" and that one parable of course and whether or not it's literal, but at the end of the day it's not clear and a product of what people were taught that leads people to read it that way.--Spoony (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not educated on a topic, then stop writing about it. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Said that because people have a bad habit of assuming they are on any topic on here. Still will talk about it. I am aware of the general discourse in that thoughtspace. The sheol/gehenna/tartarus issue, aionos, the parable, you get the idea.--Spoony (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jesus leaping lord the new testament is bloody FULL of threats of burning fire in multiple books and descriptions and DOES NOT NEED TO BE CITED! If you don't know about descriptions of fire in the NT then you don't know anything about this topic and should stop bloody reverting. Go find some other article to troll. Shabi  DOO  15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not trolling but such a response would surely satisfy one. If I'm trolling, don't respond. At the end of the day your only citation is "its everywhere in the NT source: just trust me bro" and you do not understand how complicated this topic gets. At the end of the day I'm not the one who started this edit war. Continue to be so hostile over your edit and I'll have to assume this is in bad faith. Multiple people have reverted it, I did once and explained the reasoning.--Spoony (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) The Bible says what the Bible says (modulo translation and centuries of alterations). It's completely understandable to recognise how repellent parts of it are and have to work around those parts, something best done by recognising it as a flawed work of man and applying your best judgement regarding morality and hoping for the best. It's important to recognise the part of the structure of the Christian faith that have been built without the scaffold of the Bible at all - (everything about the rapture has been created from whole cloth, for example). Some of those inventions are attempts to rehabilitate nasty bits of the Bible and as I already said: its entirely proper to point that out when it occurs. This is one of them. Unless you try to apply the 'logic' of people who believe that only the right kind of believer can 'correctly' understand the Bible, and the rest of us can't even have it explained to us, but that is so obviously hokum we shouldn't entertain it. I still don't understand what your point is here other than 'I don't want the article to point out how this belief about hell doesn't have support in the Bible'. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These are not inventions but doctrine that has been around since the dawn of the Religion. Origen was a Universalist, an early church father. Arnobius was also an annihilationist. With how aggressively the article is being warred on it's pretty obvious there is some emotional investment on this topic and I'm sorry to hear that.--Spoony (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Origen is as far removed from the dawn of the religion as we are from WWI. Anobius as distant from it as we are from the golden age of piracy. They were some of the architects of the extra-Biblical aspects of Christian faith, not a disproof of it. The earliest reference I can find for any 'absence of God' concept of hell, even by the loosest definition, is St. Augustine. For that actual wording, the oldest is apparently C S Lewis. The modern idea of the rapture is just weird fan-fic of the book of Revelation which is, itself, weird fan-fic of the rest of the NT. Every Christian sect likes to pretend that their version is the truest to the original faith. All of them are dead wrong, except perhaps one of the Eastern Orthodox branches (as far as I can tell they weren't as affected by political machinations as the mainline branch). Sorry, this just reeks of trying to whitewash inconvenient facts about the modern Christian faith. You're the one who objected to the original version, apparently, but also the one who objected to a more expansive rewrite that tried to address your stated concerns. It looks like consensus is against you; probably better to let it go. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What a bunch of lies--Back2theroots34 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I still don't see is a Biblical reference showing that the 'this isn't in the Bible' snark was wrong. Absent that, everything else is just a tone argument. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave you the reasons why it's "not in the bible" far up there, whatever that means. It's in the bible just as much as the rapture is, a can of worms of its own (that means "sort of but not really, you can come up with the rapture from 2 Thess. though"). Origen is from the 2nd century, and St. Augustine was far later than any, so saying he's the earliest you could find is a blatant lie to anyone who cares enough to google the names. "The sheol/gehenna/tartarus issue, aionos, the parable of the rich man and lazarus being literal or not, you get the idea." If those things do not mean anything to you, you are not equipped to be talking about this. Tone argument or not I'm sure i'd get in pretty big trouble if I accused you of having a pretty contemptful attitude about this so maybe don't treat this like some big argument to win and start pointing out big logical fallacies like trap cards.--Spoony (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for "Hell is the absence of God" from the Bible yet? Because what you wanted to remove was snark saying it wasn't in there. If you want that snippet gone in any form, find that reference. Everything is just wasting time. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should entertain the idea that the zeal of the newly-converted might be leading you astray. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jesús leaping Krishba. It's like asking someone to find a source that Shakespeare divided every play into 5 acts or that the sky is blue. Go through any play and note the 5 acts. Look up at the sky...note that in the day time minus cliuds it is blue. Read the majority of books of the new testament and see a mention of fire and no sneaky theological weasel words or disclaimers. Zheesh. Do you own homework and pick up the damb book and read it if you are so sure this isnt the case and cite it if you find it. And no...this isn t a case of tone arguments, it's someone wanting to remove text for no good reason and multiple users rightly reverting it. There is no con troversey, just a very unreasonable troll. Shabi DOO  17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright; Guess I need to cut off my hand and pluck out my eye with this reasoning. Outside this website, it is a controversy. the term "weasel word" has nothing to do with the situation. Grow up and study the subject you're arguing about. No one is trolling you and if you genuinely thought that was the case you wouldn't respond so good job feeding them numbnut.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Someone who argued for the sake of arguing. Hope this pointless stupidity is over now Shabi  DOO  18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to test the patience of outsiders I hope you know you have accomplished it, have a shot of bourbon to it. Thanks for treating the whole subject with scorn, I find it to be sad.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with these types of debates - as I see it - is they are properly debates amongst Christians. Like Harry Potter devotes arguing about some supposed hidden meaning in Harry Potter.
 * So there certainly is a debate in the Christian community about what the Bible says - or about what each sect thinks the bible does/should say. But that is not a debate about reality. It's a debate amongst believers about what some scientifically erroneous book says and how they can best reconcile it with their particular sect's beliefs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple. If you're not a Harry Potter Fan then don't get involved. And don't claim to know better about the series than one. Ironically Christians do that all the time with Harry Potter, but it applies here too.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's such a moronic statement that I had to reread it multiple times. "If you aren't a fan, don't critically examine the work"? Fucking asinine dogshit. 19:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Should be easy for you to find that Biblical passage about hell being the absence of god, then. Because that's what this revert about; what's actually stated in the Bible rather than what some people's interpretation of it is (no matter if its right or wrong). You don't need to be a Harry Potter fan to tell fan-fiction from the original text. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What is actually explicitly stated in the bible is neither "absence of God" nor the rewrite given. Thanks for the ad hominem statements though, calling people morons. If you critically examined it you would understand it's not that simple and if you believe it is it says more about you than the bible. I understand the website is about combating fundamentalism but it's not the only perspective.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman and fallacy fallacy. I didn't call you a moron, and that's not how ad homs work. Maybe learn to read? 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not even gonna explain how it's a strawman? Okay buddy. The most overused accusation on the internet. Never learned to read or used a day of my education.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a moron IS an ad hominem. Read your own articles.--2600:387:C:6C36:0:0:0:5 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, now I actually get to call you two morons. Note that I'm not accusing you of being morons and therefore wrong, which is the actual structure of an ad hom I'm saying you're morons because you're wrong. And here's how: "That's such a moronic statement that I had to reread it multiple times." Note I said your statement was moronic. Statement. As in the thing you said. So I literally am not arguing to the person. I'm stating that what you said was "moronic". Therefore, your assertion that I was engaging in an ad hom is in fact a strawman and a fallacy fallacy, since you are incorrectly attacking a fallacy that I did not make and are misrepresenting what I said to do so, i.e. a strawman. Please, learn to read. 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This situation is amazing.-Spoony (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (EC) ...you know that the original version, that stated that 'hell is the absence of God' is not in the Bible, was what 2friedeggs was objecting to, right? So do you then favour that original version over its removal or the rewrite? *sigh* And calling an argument 'moronic' is not an ad hom. In fact, calling a person a 'moron' would not be either. Ad hom would be if someone used an insult to argue why someone else was wrong. Saying someone is wrong and consequently they are also insult is not, and never can be, ad hom. The implication is going the other way. QueexUser_Talk:Queexchthonic murmurings 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If that's how it started out as fine but that's not how it ended in the edit history.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Look I'm just going to mention that the new edit is even worse than the old one which I think is his point and that I'm convinced it's a double-down from the former edit.--Spoony (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I studied philosophy in a catholic university with a heavy theology component. I have thoroughly read the bible (the NT multiple times over), notable theological works and I am very aware of major theological arguments including the asinine one that hell is eternity without God. I am no expert but I think I know enough to contribute to a small article on a wiki that doesn't even specialise in theology. The fact that you are even asking for quotes about descriptions of hell in the NT leads me to believe that you are either ignorant about the NT and much of Christian theology or are just playing stupid and arguing for the sake of arguing. Either way, to come from that position and preach to others to not write what they don't know about when you know shit (or are feigning it)...is preposterous. Knock it off. Despite it being ludicrous we even have to do it, we have cited verses discussing the fire and/or destruction of hell in the new testament. You might do us the favour of quoting a verse where it CLEARLY says that hell is "just eternity without God and the multiple descriptions of fire is just a metaphor". Please do so, or kindly taking your whining and "no fair" narrative elsewhere. I agree you didn't use an ad hominem argument. You haven't even made an argument yet. I do think you are being a disingenuous douche. That isn't an ad hominem or even an insult, just an accurate description of your behaviour today. Shabi  DOO  22:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Claiming to know about the different perspectives of the Bible after studyijg at a Catholic university is like claiming to have a divine revelation after smoking meth: You're just coming down full of yourself. And your attitude seems to fit well with this sentiment. I told you to calm down twice or three times now. You are ignoring what I just literally said about the matter. I'm not arguing about the separation from God part here and I suspect you know this despite your claim. Do not make me assume bad faith.--Spoony (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now THIS is a proper strawman fallacy (note I am properly identifying a fallacy here). Never claimed to be an expert or know all the different perspectives on the bible (please don't misrepresent what I said). I said I know enough to contribute to this article, as anyone would after taking a few university level theology classes and theology laden philosophy classes. In fact, a basic reading of the NT and a dabble in theological arguments would be enough. You're speaking almost as much nonsense as Back2theroots. I also asked you to not go around wikicopping which you have done today at multiple levels. It is a bad habit. Shabi DOO  23:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was the one accused of making an ad hom. 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever wikicopping means. Flexing your credentials like that ona. Publically editable wiki comes across as such. You still have only one perspective and my whole goal in the first place was to point out the new edits do nothing but point out what the site's zeitgeist views as worst-case-scenario.-Spoony (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn, interpreting "I've studied something [clearly qualifying to what limited extent] but I am not an expert" as "flexing credentials" is pretty fucking ridiculous. Are you being for real? Says more about your own insecurities than anything. Dismissing what we said as "just one perspective" or "the site's zeitgeist" is childish babble. Make an actual argument already. Shabi  DOO  23:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You call me a child yet you're lucky I'm still here to bear your scorn after dismissing everything I say. My insecurities have nothing to do with this, don't make it personal because if you want to I'll have a lot to say about you.--Spoony (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed GC, I got that one totally wrong. It is even worse in that case Shabi  DOO  23:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of all the edits I've seen so far this is the dumbest and most denominationaly biased but I hardly suspect the site really cares at this point -- care to clarify your objection to my addition of a reference to the Summa Theologica (in particular, the line Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned), with regard to a claim made in the article about what is said in the Summa Theologica? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Shabidoo! Unfortunately the source itself down nothing but prooftext to make it's assertions which any theologian worth his salt would see as a big no-no.--Spoony (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Groan: "any theologian worth his salt would see as a big no-no". Who else has had enough of this? Shabi  DOO  23:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * lol--Spoony (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm not even convinced it's the original Spoony, tbh. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The saddest set of replies I've seen yet--Spoony (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (ECx3)(I assume you were replying to me?) I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. I'm not familiar enough with the term prooftext to know what that reply means, and I don't know how to parse down nothing but prooftext.  Does the source use a modified version of the text?  Are saying that the quote misrepresents Aquinas's views?  If so, I'd ask you to expand on your objection, and note that I deliberately placed the citation so as to indicate that it is only meant to justify the claim that Aquinas reports that the blessed can view the damned, and exclude that this will make them really happy, given what he goes on to say about how the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I am replying to you. Prooftexting is when people take one or two verses out of letters and whole books in the bible to support a particular bit of doctrine. Something that site does in droves. St. Aquinas is not even mentioned in the citation although i'm pretty convinced this will stop no one.--Spoony (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'That site', as I've already pointed out, is hosting a fucking translation of St. Aquinas's text. Not 'prooftexting'. The actual translation, which understandably does not mention the author's name on every page. Christ velocipedal. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's literally the 1920 English translation of the original text. But as that translation was put together by Catholics, apparently it's unreliable. Absurd inter-denominational griping. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a part of any denomination. If it was a protestant or an Eastern Orthodox one I would just have been dismayed. You know what they say about assuming.--Spoony (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of you, seriously, stop with the whining, the dismissing and the rhetoric. Make an actual argument already! Reply to our requests for counter-examples/evidence/bible-verses or knock it the fuck off.
 * You know what you're doing, just don't break your back while doing it.--Spoony (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Shabi DOO  23:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I think I'm understanding; you are saying that the website I cited, New Advent, is prone to, effectively, cherrypicking, yes? My thinking is that text taken directly from the Summa Theologica constitutes good evidence of what is said therein. I thought the line "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned" was a direct quote from the Summa (and, by extension, from Aquinas), and that (in context) this could uncontroversially be taken as saying that the saints in heaven are able to see the suffering of the damned in hell. Given the later statement that "the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy" and not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked (as such), I thought citing that line of the Summa as a source for the whole statement was a bit of a stretch. If your objection is just that New Advent is not reliable as a source of text from the Summa, I would gladly seek out an alternative source of the text, to ensure that I am quoting from a reliable presentation and not one that might have been manipulated. If you also object that this quote, if accurate, is itself still unrepresentative for the portion of the claim I am using it to support, please do say so explicitly, as your most recent reply leads me to think that this is not your objection. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked for another source. The one you found is the 1920 translation, unaltered (at least for that section) from the pdf I found somewhere else. The entire objection is drivel. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aquinas himself is cherrypicking. If you read the source bearing in mind what I said you would understand this--Spoony (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter one jot if he is. We're stating what he said and sourcing it, without taking a position on his accuracy. What is wrong with you? Queexchthonic murmurings 00:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, now that you said it.--Spoony (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I declare the entire above a bullshitty waste of time. To engage anymore in any of this is to contribute to more bulshitty time wasting. I highly encourage you all to allow spoon to have the last pointless word and put this behind us. Shabi  DOO  00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you and Serene literally the same person playing some good-cop bad-cop routine?--Spoony (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to restate my point that this entire argument started from "separation from God" to "St Aquinas said this" when my entire point was how nuanced the whole topic is in the first place from the moment the second century hit a point happily ignored with glee by the people who participated in this discussion the most enthusiastically. There were no sources for me to cite the same way I wouldn't (necessarily) need to cite a source when claiming cigarettes cause cancer. But then you say, got an enthusiastic person who really wants to hammer his point across, more specifically what he was taught as his doctrinally-biased university and that is what won out and it being taken as fact. This whole argument was nothing but clowning as a result. Maybe it's what I get for arguing theology on a site like this but at the end of the day it still bothers me.--Spoony (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find sources that cigarettes cause cancer. It's not on other people to find sources for you. Although if you don't really have any suggestions for how to improve the article, this discussion has run its course. (Well, the discussion has run its course long ago but that's beside the point.) Plutocow (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was that no one asks for ciggy sources for obvious reasons. The article is worse off than before because it veered the opposite direction of the point I was trying to make from the very start. It ran it's course long before it did so though.--Spoony (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @2friedeggs I am a different person from Shabi. I do have a sockpuppet, though. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"That no proof exists for the existence of a soul, let alone heaven" About that...
The idea that there is no proof that the soul or heaven exists is not evidence against it. It just means that it has not been proven yet at best or that it is unfalsifiable at worst. But even unfalsifiable things are not definitively false. They are just rejected by the scientific community because they do more harm than good to scientific thinking. Also, saying that the fact that there is no proof of something outside of the material world is evidence against that assertion is an appeal to ignorance. 149.19.32.102 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are greatly implying that the lack of evidence of any given concept results in that concept somehow attaining more validity. For a great amount of pseudo-science, there exists no direct proof that it is false, despite the fact that there exists no proof that it is true, yet, do we still consider Quantum mysticism to be a vaild study? This is very much how religion still persists to this day, despite science -directly or indirectly- showing little proof for its truthfulness, and in most instances, even refuting it entirely. There will likely never exist any proof for the soul or heaven, however, there does not exist proof that fully proves it does not exist. You are displaying the "god of the gaps" concept in this instance.Wisconcom (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that an invisible hippo is dancing on the moon right now. That doesn't mean that it definitely isn't the case. The existence of invisible dancing moon hippos is rejected by the scientific community because of their harmful scientific thinking. No proof of invisible dancing hippos on the moon, IS NOT PROOF THEY DON'T EXIST. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS YOU NECK BEARD ATHEISTS!!! Shabi  DOO  16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)