Hello,
What do you all think of the several references in the New Testament about everlasting life? Jesus taught about it with some of these quotes from him. Jesus is truly the Son of God and real, even the Old Testament before he was on earth has prophecies about him such as Isaiah 53 which were fulfilled.
John 4:13, 14 "Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 10:27-30 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." - Jesus
John 10:10, 11 "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." - Jesus
(For those who do not currently own a bible, here's one online, this is not my website and I'm not affiliated with it - http://www.allonlinebible.com/read/ (http://www.allonlinebible.com/read/)
For anyone who wants to accept Christ as your savior to receive everlasting life, you can pray to him, confess you are a sinner and tell him you accept his sacrifice on the cross for your sins so that you saved from them. Then it's good to be active in your faith by being baptized,joining a church,reading the word, and continuing to pray. Christ is the lord in heaven now :)
Eternal life is worth the effort.
Preaching? Yeah, definitely preaching.
Quote from: Dobermonster on March 14, 2012, 04:44:00 AM
Preaching? Yeah, definitely preaching.
I would second that conclusion.
Luke 19:26-27, talking about the parable of the Minas (implication being this is what he'd do to his enemies)
Quote26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
and
Matthew 10:32-37
Quote32 "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Everlasting life? With him? No thank you. I don't hang out with people like that, let alone deities. :)
I can assure you, I love my mom and my daughter much, MUCH more than I would ever love a god, even if he/she/it existed. And when I was a Christian (and ignored passages like these), I still loved them much more. If I'm not 'worthy' of him, and if he'd just as soon kill me for being an enemy of his because I certainly don't want or need that kind of "king"... well, there you have it. :)
Everlasting life, wow, sounds fantastic.
Can I get a cup of that juice please!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fsleep%2Fsleeping-smiley-face.gif&hash=e383815cd82d8d642162111d43ee6f567170b6f6)
Quote from: CalmReflect on March 14, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
Hello,
What do you all think of the several references in the New Testament about everlasting life? Jesus taught about it with some of these quotes from him. Jesus is truly the Son of God and real, even the Old Testament before he was on earth has prophecies about him such as Isaiah 53 which were fulfilled.
John 4:13, 14 "Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 10:27-30 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." - Jesus
John 10:10, 11 "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." - Jesus
(For those who do not currently own a bible, here's one online, this is not my website and I'm not affiliated with it - http://www.allonlinebible.com/read/ (http://www.allonlinebible.com/read/)
For anyone who wants to accept Christ as your savior to receive everlasting life, you can pray to him, confess you are a sinner and tell him you accept his sacrifice on the cross for your sins so that you saved from them. Then it's good to be active in your faith by being baptized,joining a church,reading the word, and continuing to pray. Christ is the lord in heaven now :)
Eternal life is worth the effort.
CalmReflect
I suggest you read the rules here. Particularly about preaching and posting controversial topics in Getting To Know you.
Regards
Chris
Notes for new members.The Rules. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=1522.0)
Users who comply with forum rules will graduate to full membership after 10 posts.
Till that time your ability to post is limited to the "Getting to Know You" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php#2) section of the forum.
It is our hope that this small restriction improves the overall atmosphere of HAF.
Some threads you might find interesting.
Where did you get your username from? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5133.0)
10 Things About Yourself (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4940.0)
Tell us A Bit About Where You're From (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8215.0)
Photography (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7607.0)
Non-religious pet peeves (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6917.0)
Pets...what do you have? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7.0)
Favorite Song, with video (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8830.0)
How to tell your family you are an atheist. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5111.0)*
"Rules for Conducting a Discussion" by Dr. Mortimer J. Adler (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5631.0)*
*You will need 10 posts before you can add a post to this thread, but you can read it at any time.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 14, 2012, 07:58:18 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fsleep%2Fsleeping-smiley-face.gif&hash=e383815cd82d8d642162111d43ee6f567170b6f6)
Yes, (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fsleep%2Fsleeping-smiley-face.gif&hash=e383815cd82d8d642162111d43ee6f567170b6f6)
Hello there,
CalmReflect. My guess is that you're a post-and-run preacher, and we probably won't hear from you again. The main body of your post is drivel in my opinion, but at least you tried to offer a resource of some kind.
Quote from: CalmReflect on March 14, 2012, 04:00:35 AM(For those who do not currently own a bible, here's one online, this is not my website and I'm not affiliated with it - http ://www.allonlinebible.com/read/
That's a sad little website. I guess it's your Christian charity which lead you to linking to it, eh? A much more useful site for examining biblical passages is Biblos.com (http://biblos.com/). Then there's Biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/), which is also far superior to the site you linked. For a more critical examination of the Bible (and the Quran and the Book of Mormon) I enjoy the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/).
Jesus also said he would return and judge the world within a generation of his lifetime, so we know he was full of bull...
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Jesus also said he would return and judge the world within a generation of his lifetime, so we know he was full of bull...
He came back a few times to judge us silently.
I actually have hard the "You can't love anyone more than me" quote from my dad, who proceeded to tell me I was the second greatest joy in his life after God. :-\
God has a weird self esteem issue.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Jesus also said he would return and judge the world within a generation of his lifetime, so we know he was full of bull...
What was he meaning though, our sun is what, 2nd or 3rd generation?
Are deity generations longer or shorter than the stellar, I'd of thought longer but they are so damn mysterious, in their ways and stuff.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 14, 2012, 12:26:49 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 10:37:12 AM
Jesus also said he would return and judge the world within a generation of his lifetime, so we know he was full of bull...
What was he meaning though, our sun is what, 2nd or 3rd generation?
Are deity generations longer or shorter than the stellar, I'd of thought longer but they are so damn mysterious, in their ways and stuff.
true, maybe I was interpreting 'this generation' a bit leterally. Maybe Jesus was actually talking about the generation of sea grass growing off the Judaean shore, that would give him tens of thousands of years to return in...
..."And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.""
so me, being a non israelite and a... dog.. I guess I am not worthy. So spare me! I dont dig racists
Quote from: MariaEvri on March 14, 2012, 05:31:27 PM
..."And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.""
so me, being a non israelite and a... dog.. I guess I am not worthy. So spare me! I dont dig racists
Of course the part after is left out. But why go into that here...
What's the part after?
Quote from: Budhorse4 on March 14, 2012, 07:19:32 PM
What's the part after?
Here's the whole:
Quote from: Matthew 15:21-28Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
For me to elaborate would be considered preaching. I'll suggest simply that the woman while not a "lost sheep of Israel" was nonetheless given the same that was considered only for the "lost sheep of Israel" and therefore...the same.
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
So if the mother didn't pass the test, Jesus wouldn't have bothered saving her daughter?
<sarcasim level=intense>Nice, this Jesus fella</sarcasim>
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
So if the mother didn't pass the test, Jesus wouldn't have bothered saving her daughter?
<sarcasim level=intense>Nice, this Jesus fella</sarcasim>
What test do you see? She felt a need, acknowledged who could fulfill that need and according to the story, she was rewarded for doing so. Not a test at all.
Do you "bother" to help EVERY single person within your sphere of influence? I don't think so. I'm sure there are many people in need of a meal within walking distance of you that you've not "bothered saving". What test need they pass for your help?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Here we go, AD justifying in his mind that DJ now gets "justifiably" condemned to imaginary hell, and very (imaginary) Christ like of you to express this to DJ. I'm sure you will be BFF now, well at least until she gets annihilated by your loving god. LOL
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:34:06 PM
What test do you see?
For god's sake, the faith test, buddy, read the bible please, you only just quoted it a few minutes ago. Some of the words and sentences are important for the believer.
QuoteThen Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted."
Are you able to explain why Jesus deemed the plight of the daughter was based on the faith of the mother? Does the daughter not count as a person in her own right?
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Here we go, AD justifying in his mind that DJ now gets "justifiably" condemned to imaginary hell, and very (imaginary) Christ like of you to express this to DJ. I'm sure you will be BFF now, well at least until she gets annihilated by your loving god. LOL
Ad Hom.
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:40:46 PM
Are you able to explain why Jesus deemed the plight of the daughter was based on the faith of the mother? Does the daughter not count as a person in her own right?
You seem to miss that the mother's faith healed the daughter. The daughter didn't take any test yet was healed...but you'd miss that, I understand. There is no test. You either have faith or don't. Faith is a choice based on either need, want, or both (possibly more). Who knows if the mother's faith was that Christ was the son of God. She only had faith that he could heal and so she put her faith into action and was rewarded.
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Here we go, AD justifying in his mind that DJ now gets "justifiably" condemned to imaginary hell, and very (imaginary) Christ like of you to express this to DJ. I'm sure you will be BFF now, well at least until she gets annihilated by your loving god. LOL
Well, in all fairness, this is usually how I explain myself to Christians who won't let the issue go (not that that is what AD is doing in this particular case). I used to be Christian, so I understand everything about it. It just have to decline. I don't care too much if that condemns me to hell in their mind because, really, it's probably easier that way for them. I'm not torn up about the prospect of hell, so I really don't want someone to waste a lot of energy on it. I remember that feeling as a Christian; worrying about everyone's salvation all of the time. It's exhausting.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:44:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Here we go, AD justifying in his mind that DJ now gets "justifiably" condemned to imaginary hell, and very (imaginary) Christ like of you to express this to DJ. I'm sure you will be BFF now, well at least until she gets annihilated by your loving god. LOL
Ad Hom.
Not really an Ad Hom, the second part of that sentence was not aimed to discredit you and your validity with regards to the first part of the sentence.
I'm not sure if you realise how offensive your statement was. I don't know how DJ took it but personally, I don't like to see a person pointing at people and telling them they are going to hell.
Although atheists don't believe these statements, they are offensive anyway.
It would be like telling a new mother than she is a bad mother because she is unable to breastfeed. The mother ought not to believe the accuser because they are not in a position to judge. But the very act of judging (whether true or not) is very offensive.
This judgement is one of the main reasons atheists have an issue with religion.
If you want to build bridges rather than dig chasms then you are better to show the value of Christianity rather than to offer direct examples of the negative side. You cannot convince us to join the dark side by instilling fear or guilt. It won't work on us. Think compassion and love rather than judgment and damnation.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:40:46 PM
Are you able to explain why Jesus deemed the plight of the daughter was based on the faith of the mother? Does the daughter not count as a person in her own right?
You seem to miss that the mother's faith healed the daughter. The daughter didn't take any test yet was healed...but you'd miss that, I understand. There is no test. You either have faith or don't. Faith is a choice based on either need, want, or both (possibly more). Who knows if the mother's faith was that Christ was the son of God. She only had faith that he could heal and so she put her faith into action and was rewarded.
Honestly this makes no sense to me.
Thanks for explaining it though, I do appreciate your effort.
It seems with Christianity, (at least the AD version of Christianity)
That the hones is always on the people. God and Jesus have no accountability whatsoever.
People go to hell and it is their fault, not the thing that sends them there.
People are annihilated by fire and it is their fault no the thing doing the annihilation.
People don't get cured of an illness and it is their fault for not having faith in the entity capable of performing the magical cure.
People starve to death and it is not the person with the magic food replication trick's doing, he had more important things to do (like wash his male friends' feet or talk to burning trees)
Wait, who was speaking to burning trees? o_o!
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 15, 2012, 12:23:10 AM
Wait, who was speaking to burning trees? o_o!
Whoops, just looked it up, that was Moses the guy that commands armies to rape little girls.
Sorry my bad
Quote from: Matthew 15:21-28Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
This Jesus guy sounds a total jerk.
"And her daughter was healed from that very hour," ye sure, so his publicists say.
Jesus seems to change his mind like a fallible human, and for such a crappy reason.
Arise fawning sycophant for you are blessed.
So what's year 0032 demon possession?
It's misdiagnosed mental illness isn't it.
So this mother throws herself at the feet of every passing pretender.
I wouldn't find this crap so annoying if it wasn't still happening.
I dunno, I just assume most Christians think I'm going to hell. Because I really don't know how else they can reconcile so many non-believers (who are aware of Jesus) in the world with their faith. "You're going to hell" isn't a cordial thing to actually say to someone, but I don't know that we can expect theists to not incorporate the idea into their worldview. Yeah, it's an offensive idea to us as Atheists, but I wasn't really offended by AD's comment. He didn't say "oh, someday you'll know I'm right when you're writhing in flames lol", he just said that I used free will to "decline" an offer. His interpretation of that "offer" (he thinks it's a legit offer, whereas I don't) is different, but the premise is the same.
There might have been a slight connotation from him that I was acknowledging that the offer was coming from God - which I obviously deny, but I don't think it was anything too grievous and I don't even know if it was intentional on his part. He has to interpret it from a Christian worldview and we have to interpret it from an Atheist worldview. We should try to keep civil with one another, but it might be a bit much to hope that Christians will think and speak exactly like atheists.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 01:04:42 AM
We should try to keep civil with one another, but it might be a bit much to hope that Christians will think and speak exactly like atheists.
I really don't mind Christians talking like Christians. I mean, they can tell me that they prayed for a sunny day on their wedding day. Or they can tell me that they prayed for a friend to get better from an illness. They can tell me that they believe they are going to heaven and are going to live forever by Jesus' side. I don't mind that stuff.
When they start telling me that I ought to believe in their god, that I ought to not accept euthanasia because their god doesn't like it then that is really annoying.
But when they start saying that I am going to hell. That is completely over the top. They are saying that they want me to be tortured, that they want me to be annihilated and that the god they praise will be their hero and will do this stuff to me simply because I don't believe in it. In a way they are threatening me, in a way they are painting me and all atheists out to be scum worthy of annihilation. The arrogance of some Christians I find intolerable.
I believe that a truly decent Christian ought to go home and in the privacy of their home pray to their god not to do terrible things to the unbeliever. They ought to try and convince their god that unbelievers are wonderful people, instead of this gloating/warning rubbish they do in our faces.
I know AD wasn't directing his comment at me, he was directing it at you. But I felt it was unacceptable. Us atheists need to stand up for ourselves and tell these people to sort their own house out rather than worrying about us. It is this public judgment that creates hate.
Why do you think atheists are one of the most hated groups of people in America? It is certainly not because of our actions.
Passively we are an easy target, we ought to stand up for ourselves, at least some of the time.
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
Passively we are an easy target, we ought to stand up for ourselves, at least some of the time.
I get that and part of why I may feel this way is because I have the luxury of living in a place where religion is, largely, a non-issue. I also used to be Catholic and still have a lot of Catholic family, so I admit that I tend to be a bit passive about this and maybe it's not always a good thing. I think the thing is, to me, having a Christian pray that God blesses me and my family with rainbows and buckets of gold is just as ridiculous as having them smarmily tell me I'm going to hell.
Now, yes, I think the Christian who chooses to tell me they're going to "pray for me" (in a non-patronizing tone) is probably nicer than the Christian who chooses to tell me that I'm going to hell. But on a fundamental, theological, level all Christians probably believe in the validity of those two things and I expect it to peek out every now and again. I used to be a Christian who genuinely believed and worried that people I loved were going to hell; I honestly didn't want it to happen and didn't wish it on any of them, but I
believed it. I felt like I had to and it was a kind of on-going mental torture.
So that might be why I cut Christians a bit of slack on this, as well. I honestly feel kind of bad for them. It sucks to really like someone, feel like something horrible
has to happened to them, and to not be able to do anything about it.
Quote from: CalmReflect on March 14, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
For anyone who wants to accept Christ as your savior to receive everlasting life, you can pray to him, confess you are a sinner and tell him you accept his sacrifice on the cross for your sins so that you saved from them. Then it's good to be active in your faith by being baptized,joining a church,reading the word, and continuing to pray. Christ is the lord in heaven now :)
Eternal life is worth the effort.
Yeah, because the only reason we could be atheists is because we're lazy. I know all the secrets of the universe now thanks to you. ;D
Thanks but no thanks, I don't want to take the first steps towards considering myself a member of that cult, and I think that being called a 'sheep' is particularly offensive...
Actuallly, it's worth remembering that if we were to take all religions into account, everyone is going to hell. People just don't like to think that they're going to hell and that their religion is, in fact, the true one. Without more or less proof, of course...just belief.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 15, 2012, 01:58:14 AM
Quote from: CalmReflect on March 14, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
For anyone who wants to accept Christ as your savior to receive everlasting life, you can pray to him, confess you are a sinner and tell him you accept his sacrifice on the cross for your sins so that you saved from them. Then it's good to be active in your faith by being baptized,joining a church,reading the word, and continuing to pray. Christ is the lord in heaven now :)
Eternal life is worth the effort.
Yeah, because the only reason we could be atheists is because we're lazy. I know all the secrets of the universe now thanks to you. ;D
Thanks but no thanks, I don't want to take the first steps towards considering myself a member of that cult, and I think that being called a 'sheep' is particularly offensive...
You know, even when I was trying to be a Xtian, and then just trying to be religious, eternal life never interested me, and the continuous fuss about it was one of those things I never understood about Xtianity. I can understand not wanting to die (at least not until I'm actually tired of living), but making up stories about death not being "really real" just seems childish, and going around trying to convince yourself of such nonsense by convincing other people is pathetic.
It also seems like an insult to Xtianity, which while no longer of any importance to me, I'd imagine would be worth more to Xtians than just a trade-off for a ticket to Nevernever Land. But then maybe all this is just what made my atheism inevitable.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
Now, yes, I think the Christian who chooses to tell me they're going to "pray for me" (in a non-patronizing tone) is probably nicer than...
I was suggesting they do the prayer without telling you about it. Behind closed doors or just silently inside their head, just them and their belief in god.
Like they might pray for people that are physically dying, here they might be praying for people that are spiritually "dying" whatever that means.
I mean, if they have the urge to help and are feeling compelled into action. Then isn't prayer the avenue for things that they have no physical influence on?
As long as they don't tell you about it, then it is not patronising, it isn't some dishonest approach to convince you to become a Christian.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
I used to be a Christian who genuinely believed and worried that people I loved were going to hell; I honestly didn't want it to happen and didn't wish it on any of them, but I believed it. I felt like I had to and it was a kind of on-going mental torture.
I hear what you are saying. It's how they have been taught to think, I guess, and their empathy or compassion eats them up.
Do they realise they are being disrespectful to the person that does not hold the same belief as themselves? Implying god's hell or god's annihilation is a form of mental coercion, do they realise they are doing this?
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 02:35:44 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
I used to be a Christian who genuinely believed and worried that people I loved were going to hell; I honestly didn't want it to happen and didn't wish it on any of them, but I believed it. I felt like I had to and it was a kind of on-going mental torture.
I hear what you are saying. It's how they have been taught to think, I guess, and their empathy or compassion eats them up.
Do they realise they are being disrespectful to the person that does not hold the same belief as themselves? Implying god's hell or god's annihilation is a form of mental coercion, do they realise they are doing this?
Some of them, yes. But many, no. I think. I think a lot of them are so wound up in trying to reconcile all of the inconsistencies in the doctrines in their own head that they don't even realize that they aren't being fair to other people. Or they just take an "ends justify the means" approach by telling themselves that it's better that they offend some atheists now if it means that it saves them later - not exactly a respectful approach, but well-intentioned to varying degrees.
I always think of my (very Catholic) father when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm positive that my Dad believes I've damned my son, his adorable and innocent grand-child, to purgatory/hell because I didn't get him baptized. He's never said anything to me about it, but I just know he believes it because this is the same man that dragged me kicking and screaming to get confirmed. Does he think my son really deserves hell? No! He's the cutest, sweetest toddler you could imagine. But he believes that's what I've done to him. He can't blame God for my son's fate because he just can't - he has 55 years of indoctrination that tells him that it's
our fault and not God's fault. Dad's an otherwise pretty good person, but he is in a position where he has to believe horrible things will happen to someone he loves because of a choice by someone he loves. That's some pretty horrible mental coercion in its own right and I can't help but feel pretty badly for him.
Does it make me feel badly enough to get my son baptized? No. But it's got to suck as a Grandfather and it is a bit of an elaboration as to why I feel a bit sympathetic about the whole thing. I don't know if you've ever been religious yourself, Stevil, but I really think it can damage people. We criticize Christians a lot for "picking and choosing", but when it comes to hell, I honestly don't think that most of them feel like a belief in hell is anything of a choice. It's why I haven't told my Dad outright that I'm an atheist (though I have a feeling he probably knows) - it's not because I'm ashamed or that I think he's right, and if he ever asks me directly, I'll tell him the truth. But I don't bring it up on my own volition because I feel so badly for him. I don't want to inflict that kind of mental anguish on him.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 03:21:02 AM
But I don't bring it up on my own volition because I feel so badly for him. I don't want to inflict that kind of mental anguish on him.
I'm not sure that you give your dad enough credit.
I see those traits in my wife sometimes, she makes decisions based on what she thinks is best for me rather than asking me for my opinion.
I'm a straight up guy, as you can probably tell.
But I must admit, my wife is a much better people person than I am.
I am a bit conflicted on whether I should adopt more tact or continue being straight up.
Haha, that's okay, I often wonder if I try too much to be tactful and should be more straight up.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:44:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Here we go, AD justifying in his mind that DJ now gets "justifiably" condemned to imaginary hell, and very (imaginary) Christ like of you to express this to DJ. I'm sure you will be BFF now, well at least until she gets annihilated by your loving god. LOL
Ad Hom.
AD in future if you feel something is an ad Hom, then report the post. Do not make a comment in the thread please. - Tank
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 10:12:14 PM
A quote from me on everlasting life:
"I politely decline the offer."
Noted. To decline is to have acknowledged the offer = Freewill.
Actually, it only acknowledges that
you think there's an offer on the table. It's not an expression of free will so much as being as considerate of your feelings as possible under the circumstances.
(altho I really think it shouldn't need to be explained, the "you" here refers to whoever is making such an offer, not to AD personally)
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 11:02:44 PM
I'm not sure if you realise how offensive your statement was. I don't know how DJ took it but personally, I don't like to see a person pointing at people and telling them they are going to hell.
I said no such thing...
Quote from: StevilAlthough atheists don't believe these statements, they are offensive anyway.
Just so I understand...I'll have to assume this is you speaking personally since you don't know if DJ was offended at this point.
Are you saying that you disbelieve in Christianity...that it is hogwash...fairytales...fiction...of the deluded,
BUT that you're offended by someone thinking/saying to you, "You're going to hell." ??
Quote from: StevilIt would be like telling a new mother than she is a bad mother because she is unable to breastfeed. The mother ought not to believe the accuser because they are not in a position to judge. But the very act of judging (whether true or not) is very offensive.
This judgement is one of the main reasons atheists have an issue with religion.
I hardly see the analogy, but I'm more concerned about how you are offended by fairytales.
Quote from: StevilIf you want to build bridges rather than dig chasms then you are better to show the value of Christianity rather than to offer direct examples of the negative side. You cannot convince us to join the dark side by instilling fear or guilt. It won't work on us. Think compassion and love rather than judgment and damnation.
I neither judged nor damned DJ. I simply "noted" her choice in the matter of fairytale. My point was that she made a statement of choice on the matter of a fairytale claim.
Ultimately the value of Christianity is a matter of life or death. The chasm is the elephant in the room. I may not agree with those that point out the "hell" aspect as judgemental and a putting down of another, but I do acknowledge the elephant. Hell is part of the story.
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
But when they start saying that I am going to hell. That is completely over the top. They are saying that they want me to be tortured, that they want me to be annihilated and that the god they praise will be their hero and will do this stuff to me simply because I don't believe in it. In a way they are threatening me, in a way they are painting me and all atheists out to be scum worthy of annihilation. The arrogance of some Christians I find intolerable.
I think DJ, an ex-Christian, answers this, gives perspective for you, Stevil. It may not seem nice from your perspective and you may be right about some Christians that do this, however as DJ points out, the majority want something better for *you. Forgive our ignorance in relaying the information.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
Now, yes, I think the Christian who chooses to tell me they're going to "pray for me" (in a non-patronizing tone) is probably nicer than the Christian who chooses to tell me that I'm going to hell. But on a fundamental, theological, level all Christians probably believe in the validity of those two things and I expect it to peek out every now and again. I used to be a Christian who genuinely believed and worried that people I loved were going to hell; I honestly didn't want it to happen and didn't wish it on any of them, but I believed it. I felt like I had to and it was a kind of on-going mental torture.
So that might be why I cut Christians a bit of slack on this, as well. I honestly feel kind of bad for them. It sucks to really like someone, feel like something horrible has to happened to them, and to not be able to do anything about it.
Hasn't AD made it pretty clear that he, as somewhat of a Seventh Day Adventist, doesn't believe in a literal, eternal, burning-place-of-torment hell?
When I was a Christian, I always had an issue with the concept of hell. It made no sense to me that one's eternal destiny could be based on a belief they had (sometimes made at the very last moment before their death, too) rather than primarily based on how one lived their life. I even allowed for the idea that sure, we all mess up -- but overall, most of us intend to do far more good than harm, and that ought to count for something. It bothered me that a criminal, a murderer, could accept Jesus on death row and go to heaven, whereas someone who was an atheist and did their best to live a good life wouldn't be eligible for heaven, based just on what they believed.
Then again, as a Christian, I never thought much about what the Christian idea of heaven meant -- in my head, it was more or less a happy place, free from pain, where we'd see God and see our loved ones again. What I made myself ignore was that several of my loved ones might not be there; I couldn't contemplate such good people not being there. I also made myself ignore what heaven really was: an eternal state of worshipping the God of the Old and New testaments... which would mean condoning, loving and worshipping all the things that God did, because God is "holy". Once I realized that was more the Christian concept of heaven, I grew far less interested in it. I couldn't even stomach it. I realized I didn't condone so much of what I read in the Bible... and that's when I realized that even if "A" God could possibly exist somewhere, I no longer wanted to follow that one.
That was the beginning of my walk away from Christianity. I honestly examined what I knew about the Bible, about what eternal life would mean if I continued to want to accept it, and chose not to. I knew that I couldn't in good conscience believe a deity was holy when I could or would never want to do to humans most of the things this God did to them. So, that was that.
QuoteFor me to elaborate would be considered preaching. I'll suggest simply that the woman while not a "lost sheep of Israel" was nonetheless given the same that was considered only for the "lost sheep of Israel" and therefore...the same.
what if the woman instead of saying yes I am a dog said instead "please do not swear at me, I am human"
would she get any help then?
why would god need to call names in order to help? Why does he need to berud? Where is the love?
if she didn;t have faith he wouldn't have helped?
If I were a doctor, I would help as much as I could witout the need for calling names, or asking if they believe or not. If I claimed I loved all people, I would help all people.
Quote from: MariaEvri on March 15, 2012, 06:06:38 PM
QuoteFor me to elaborate would be considered preaching. I'll suggest simply that the woman while not a "lost sheep of Israel" was nonetheless given the same that was considered only for the "lost sheep of Israel" and therefore...the same.
what if the woman instead of saying yes I am a dog said instead "please do not swear at me, I am human"
would she get any help then?
why would god need to call names in order to help? Why does he need to berud? Where is the love?
if she didn;t have faith he wouldn't have helped?
If I were a doctor, I would help as much as I could witout the need for calling names, or asking if they believe or not. If I claimed I loved all people, I would help all people.
I don't get it. You seem to take offense at "dogs", but cannot see that she wasn't a "dog"..."Dog" is simply a metaphor for someone that "picks up the scraps" whereas the believer is the one that embraces and believes therefore comes to Him. This episode simply points out that Christ will heal ALL that come. If one needs help, but doesn't come, then they don't get healing. However if their need surpasses their understanding and believe, Christ is faithful to heal. Hence also the gift metaphor. As long as I'm out of touch with those that want to give me a xmas/birthday gift, I don't receive the gift that they would otherwise give me.
There's nothing rude about this God respecting one's beliefs or lack thereof.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Quote from: MariaEvri on March 15, 2012, 06:06:38 PM
QuoteFor me to elaborate would be considered preaching. I'll suggest simply that the woman while not a "lost sheep of Israel" was nonetheless given the same that was considered only for the "lost sheep of Israel" and therefore...the same.
what if the woman instead of saying yes I am a dog said instead "please do not swear at me, I am human"
would she get any help then?
why would god need to call names in order to help? Why does he need to berud? Where is the love?
if she didn;t have faith he wouldn't have helped?
If I were a doctor, I would help as much as I could witout the need for calling names, or asking if they believe or not. If I claimed I loved all people, I would help all people.
I don't get it. You seem to take offense at "dogs", but cannot see that she wasn't a "dog"..."Dog" is simply a metaphor for someone that "picks up the scraps" whereas the believer is the one that embraces and believes therefore comes to Him. This episode simply points out that Christ will heal ALL that come. If one needs help, but doesn't come, then they don't get healing. However if their need surpasses their understanding and believe, Christ is faithful to heal. Hence also the gift metaphor. As long as I'm out of touch with those that want to give me a xmas/birthday gift, I don't receive the gift that they would otherwise give me.
There's nothing rude about this God respecting one's beliefs or lack thereof.
AD, I don't see what you seem to see in the text.
Quote from: Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
He replied, "It is not right to take the
children's bread and toss it to
their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
What I see here is Jesus saying he only came for the Jews - the 'lost sheep of Israel'. He believed that he was sent to ONLY primarily take care of those people, not the others. When he says it's not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs, he seems to be saying that it's right right to waste time/effort/miracles/healing on people he wasn't sent to help. The woman responds to this by saying she's so desperate that even if the time/effort/miracles/healing aren't meant for her (or her daughter), she'll take any "leftovers" that there might be. Essentially, she's saying "even if you didn't want me to have it, I'll take it anyway if there's a bit of it that comes my way". That's sad, first that Jesus wouldn't seem to WANT to help all people... and secondly, sad that before he helped her, she had to make the point of nearly begging for the help.
These verses don't suggest that Jesus thought he came to help everyone, that he was sent to help everyone, or that he wanted to help everyone. He grudgingly helped her, supposedly, because he was maybe so surprised that even though she wasn't 'a lost sheep of Israel', she still thought he could help.
I dunno. It just strikes me as odd that if Jesus were divine, he'd have this response to a human being he in fact created, as he was also God, besides being the son of God. Anyone else have an issue with that, too? After all, we'd find it downright insulting today if we went to the doctor and said "please help me, my daughter has a medical issue" and the response was "sorry, my practice isn't really meant to help people like you" when in fact the doctor advertised himself as being able to treat that exact condition.
Quote from: Amicale on March 15, 2012, 06:46:18 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Quote from: MariaEvri on March 15, 2012, 06:06:38 PM
QuoteFor me to elaborate would be considered preaching. I'll suggest simply that the woman while not a "lost sheep of Israel" was nonetheless given the same that was considered only for the "lost sheep of Israel" and therefore...the same.
what if the woman instead of saying yes I am a dog said instead "please do not swear at me, I am human"
would she get any help then?
why would god need to call names in order to help? Why does he need to berud? Where is the love?
if she didn;t have faith he wouldn't have helped?
If I were a doctor, I would help as much as I could witout the need for calling names, or asking if they believe or not. If I claimed I loved all people, I would help all people.
I don't get it. You seem to take offense at "dogs", but cannot see that she wasn't a "dog"..."Dog" is simply a metaphor for someone that "picks up the scraps" whereas the believer is the one that embraces and believes therefore comes to Him. This episode simply points out that Christ will heal ALL that come. If one needs help, but doesn't come, then they don't get healing. However if their need surpasses their understanding and believe, Christ is faithful to heal. Hence also the gift metaphor. As long as I'm out of touch with those that want to give me a xmas/birthday gift, I don't receive the gift that they would otherwise give me.
There's nothing rude about this God respecting one's beliefs or lack thereof.
AD, I don't see what you seem to see in the text.
Quote from: Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
What I see here is Jesus saying he only came for the Jews - the 'lost sheep of Israel'. He believed that he was sent to ONLY primarily take care of those people, not the others. When he says it's not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs, he seems to be saying that it's right right to waste time/effort/miracles/healing on people he wasn't sent to help. The woman responds to this by saying she's so desperate that even if the time/effort/miracles/healing aren't meant for her (or her daughter), she'll take any "leftovers" that there might be. Essentially, she's saying "even if you didn't want me to have it, I'll take it anyway if there's a bit of it that comes my way". That's sad, first that Jesus wouldn't seem to WANT to help all people... and secondly, sad that before he helped her, she had to make the point of nearly begging for the help.
These verses don't suggest that Jesus thought he came to help everyone, that he was sent to help everyone, or that he wanted to help everyone. He grudgingly helped her, supposedly, because he was maybe so surprised that even though she wasn't 'a lost sheep of Israel', she still thought he could help.
I dunno. It just strikes me as odd that if Jesus were divine, he'd have this response to a human being he in fact created, as he was also God, besides being the son of God. Anyone else have an issue with that, too? After all, we'd find it downright insulting today if we went to the doctor and said "please help me, my daughter has a medical issue" and the response was "sorry, my practice isn't really meant to help people like you" when in fact the doctor advertised himself as being able to treat that exact condition.
I understand why you would think or interpret this as such. It is because this is cherry-picking an argument and not taking the whole of the bible to interpret a small piece.
One text:
Quote from: Romans 10:10-14 NIVFor it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?
Granted there is AT LEAST one word that might need some defining in there(what does it mean to be
justified), but that is what study is for.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 03:38:07 PM
BUT that you're offended by someone thinking/saying to you, "You're going to hell." ??
I'm actually fine with you thinking it, but to verbally tell someone or to imply it to that person that does not believe as you do, that I find offensive. We are not part of this horrific mythical fairytale. We live in the real world.
I find it as bad as when Christians jump up and down for joy when a disaster such as the Japan tsunami or the Christmas tsunami that hit indonesia. These guys seem genuinely excited at the death and destruction of others as if they think the rapture is upon the earth. It seems to me they take pleasure in others misfortunes. Imagined or real, it doesn't matter, the intent is the same.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 03:38:07 PM
I neither judged nor damned DJ. I simply "noted" her choice in the matter of fairytale. My point was that she made a statement of choice on the matter of a fairytale claim.
What was the point behind verballising this observation of yours? So what if she did make a statement of choice, what does that lead to?
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
What was the point behind verballising this observation of yours? So what if she did make a statement of choice, what does that lead to?
One word: Choice or Freewill.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
What was the point behind verballising this observation of yours? So what if she did make a statement of choice, what does that lead to?
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I am totally confused by this. Isn't freewill just an expression of choice?
It's not much of a choice, if you ask me.
I used to work for a company that gave you 6 sick days (and would crow about this when talking about the benefits package "6 sick days a year!") but then would write you up if you took over 5 sick days per year. Sure, you have 6 sick days, as long as you're not actually dumb enough to use them. Sure, god gave you freewill. As long as you're not actually dumb enough to use it!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 06:59:52 PM
What was the point behind verballising this observation of yours? So what if she did make a statement of choice, what does that lead to?
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I am totally confused by this. Isn't freewill just an expression of choice?
Yeah, it is! (mind is blown)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I would call BS on that.
Your intent was not to discuss or prove freewill but was to highlight Pascal's manipulative wager.
If you want to discuss, or try to prove free will then why not start a thread. I'm pretty sure I could debunk the concept of free will.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I am totally confused by this. Isn't freewill just an expression of choice?
Sure. One chooses their beliefs of their own freewill. Both fit the point. I simply meant either of the two fit. Maybe I should've written, "Two words: Choice, Freewill" ?
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 07:16:08 PM
It's not much of a choice, if you ask me.
And yet DJ expressed her choice. If God is, then knowing the bible, she's clear on her choice. It's not me damning her or willing the consequence. If one is not clear on the choice(s), then I don't presume to know how God will judge.
Quote from: AliI used to work for a company that gave you 6 sick days (and would crow about this when talking about the benefits package "6 sick days a year!") but then would write you up if you took over 5 sick days per year. Sure, you have 6 sick days, as long as you're not actually dumb enough to use them. Sure, god gave you freewill. As long as you're not actually dumb enough to use it!
So did you choose to work there or were you forced?
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 07:33:26 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I would call BS on that.
Your intent was not to discuss or prove freewill but was to highlight Pascal's manipulative wager.
How is it manipulative? Have you been manipulated into something or have you been able to use your own thoughts to come to your beliefs...err...disbelief, to be more specific.
Quote from: StevilIf you want to discuss, or try to prove free will then why not start a thread. I'm pretty sure I could debunk the concept of free will.
You're always on the attack, Stevil. It's difficult to read your words in a calm tone. I'll try though. If I'm deluded, why would it cause you to get offendedby any of this?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:19:34 PM
How is it manipulative? Have you been manipulated into something or have you been able to use your own thoughts to come to your beliefs...err...disbelief, to be more specific.
Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:19:34 PM
You're always on the attack, Stevil. It's difficult to read your words in a calm tone. I'll try though. If I'm deluded, why would it cause you to get offendedby any of this?
I can see how you would think that about me. At times I do push you pretty hard. I find it very difficult with you to get straight answers, I don't know if you do this intentionally or not. Maybe that is how your mind works, maybe that is what is needed to study the bible and still believe it.
I have never said you are deluded.
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:19:34 PM
How is it manipulative? Have you been manipulated into something or have you been able to use your own thoughts to come to your beliefs...err...disbelief, to be more specific.
Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?
Not at all. Have you died as a result of a chain letter? If you believed the chain letter was real, would you pass it on?
If not, on what basis? (I would say being stubborn.) If you did, it would mean life is worth a stamp or a few moments handing it off. There is no manipulation.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:19:34 PM
You're always on the attack, Stevil. It's difficult to read your words in a calm tone. I'll try though. If I'm deluded, why would it cause you to get offendedby any of this?
I can see how you would think that about me. At times I do push you pretty hard. I find it very difficult with you to get straight answers, I don't know if you do this intentionally or not. Maybe that is how your mind works, maybe that is what is needed to study the bible and still believe it.
I give you straight answers. If you don't think them straight, ask for clarification. If that's all I can give, I'll tell you. Otherwise, I given you straight answers. The problem is you may simply not like the answer given. Could that be the case -- and therefore you deem it not straight -- could that be the case?
Quote from: StevilI have never said you are deluded.
I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too. I lump you in that. If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:15:11 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
One word: Choice or Freewill.
I am totally confused by this. Isn't freewill just an expression of choice?
Sure. One chooses their beliefs of their own freewill. Both fit the point. I simply meant either of the two fit. Maybe I should've written, "Two words: Choice, Freewill" ?
Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice"
or "freewill".
Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not
choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.
I still can't figure out if you accepted that in my original (tongue-in-cheek) statement, or if you took it to mean some kind of round-about acceptance-though-denial of God.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 08:53:52 PM
Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice" or "freewill".
Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.
I understand. However we, you and I, are privy to the same information and yet I'm Christian, a believer, and you're Atheist, a non-believer. You said it yourself. You deny the whole framework. You've made your choice based on your own intellect. You can't deny Christ on the same vane as the FSM...there is no set of books that have existed for a few thousand years making any claims from a FSM.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietI still can't figure out if you accepted that in my original (tongue-in-cheek) statement, or if you took it to mean some kind of round-about acceptance-though-denial of God.
Maybe in a sense I did ( damn! ;) ), however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief. You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions. If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice. Or am I wrong on that?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?
Not at all. Have you died as a result of a chain letter? If you believed the chain letter was real, would you pass it on?
If not, on what basis? (I would say being stubborn.) If you did, it would mean life is worth a stamp or a few moments handing it off. There is no manipulation.
Manipulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation)
Quote
Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is underhanded or deceptive or abusive?
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is aimed to change the behaviour of the victim?
How is this differnt from the "Believe otherwise you will go to hell" phrase?
You might argue that the go to hell part is not deceptive, bu from an atheists perspective it is deceptive.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too. I lump you in that. If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.
I have asked this of you in the past, but I will do it again.
Please do not put words in my mouth. If I have not called you deluded then do not say that I have.
With regards to being outspoken, obviously this is subjective.
If you are referring to the altercasions that I have had with you
1. On one occassion you suggested to a HAF member (a rape victum) that she enjoyed rape. I stood up to you on that occassion for obvious reasons
2. On one occassion you were telling me that I thought the bible was a fairytale. I asked you not to put words in my mouth
3. On one occassion you told me that I should be grateful that Jesus died for me. I told you I am not part of the mythical world described in the bible and asked you not to refer to the crucifiction of Jesus as relating to me that I want to have nothing to do with blood sacrifice.
4. On one occassion you implied to a HAF member that she was going to hell or annihilation because she knowingly rejected eternal life offered by Jesus. I stood up to you because I don't tolerate death threats or torture threats on myself or others in communities that I belong to.
Otherwise I am open to debate on stuff. I will express my opinion, make a case for it, show some evidence if I have some.
I enjoy this forum it helps me practise debate and influence skills, it helps me to become a better writer and become better at expressing my ideas. Best of all it helps me expand on my thoughts and ideas and learn from others.
I don't understand beleivers, I have never been one. But I don't hate them, and I don't disrespect them by calling them delusional. We do get some crazy ones coming to this forum on occassion, but we do also get some normal ones too.
At times I try to understand them, some give straight answers so that I can have a decent conversation with them, some side shift and twist so that it becomes quite a challenge to have an honest exploritory descussion.
My biggest personal challenge is that I can sometimes get frustrated and maybe that manifests itself in conversation with you more than with others.
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 09:27:37 PM
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is underhanded or deceptive or abusive?
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is aimed to change the behaviour of the victim?
How is this differnt from the "Believe otherwise you will go to hell" phrase?
You might argue that the go to hell part is not deceptive, bu from an atheists perspective it is deceptive.
No. It's not underhanded or deceptive if it is true
Yes. For their advantage and they would cease therefore, to be a victim.
Do you believe life to be deceptive giving us happiness, family, kids, hobbies...and yet everyone dies? How is death deceptive if you acknowledge that death comes to all. If God isn't. Death. If God is. Death. How can you be decieved?
Pascal's Wager is not deceptive. It simply states the facts be one right or the other. Both you and I simply stand on the opposite sides of that wager. It seems to me this offends you and I cannot for the life of me figure out why...?
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too. I lump you in that. If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.
I have asked this of you in the past, but I will do it again.
Please do not put words in my mouth. If I have not called you deluded then do not say that I have.
Again, I never said YOU specifically. However if you wish, the next time I make this minor point, I'll try and remember to exclude you from the thinking that "AD" is deluded. If I forget, remind me again.
Quote from: StevilWith regards to being outspoken, obviously this is subjective.
If you are referring to the altercasions that I have had with you
1. On one occassion you suggested to a HAF member (a rape victum) that she enjoyed rape. I stood up to you on that occassion for obvious reasons
2. On one occassion you were telling me that I thought the bible was a fairytale. I asked you not to put words in my mouth
3. On one occassion you told me that I should be grateful that Jesus died for me. I told you I am not part of the mythical world described in the bible and asked you not to refer to the crucifiction of Jesus as relating to me that I want to have nothing to do with blood sacrifice.
4. On one occassion you implied to a HAF member that she was going to hell or annihilation because she knowingly rejected eternal life offered by Jesus. I stood up to you because I don't tolerate death threats or torture threats on myself or others in communities that I belong to.
1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification. I asked a question on her very words. I was banned for being insensitive.
2. Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?
3. I'm not sure I said you should be grateful. If I did, I shouldn't have. I think you were reading into my words though. You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify. It's your choice.
4. For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell. I simply stated her choice was noted. Her choice. She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.
Quote from: StevilOtherwise I am open to debate on stuff. I will express my opinion, make a case for it, show some evidence if I have some.
I enjoy this forum it helps me practise debate and influence skills, it helps me to become a better writer and become better at expressing my ideas. Best of all it helps me expand on my thoughts and ideas and learn from others.
I don't understand beleivers, I have never been one. But I don't hate them, and I don't disrespect them by calling them delusional. We do get some crazy ones coming to this forum on occassion, but we do also get some normal ones too.
At times I try to understand them, some give straight answers so that I can have a decent conversation with them, some side shift and twist so that it becomes quite a challenge to have an honest exploritory descussion.
My biggest personal challenge is that I can sometimes get frustrated and maybe that manifests itself in conversation with you more than with others.
Likewise. I have a feeling you and I would do great in person, but we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 08:53:52 PM
Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice" or "freewill".
Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.
I understand. However we, you and I, are privy to the same information and yet I'm Christian, a believer, and you're Atheist, a non-believer. You said it yourself. You deny the whole framework. You've made your choice based on your own intellect. You can't deny Christ on the same vane as the FSM...there is no set of books that have existed for a few thousand years making any claims from a FSM.
Actually, I disagree on this. Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vein that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me? Ideas are ideas; people might like old ideas because it gives them a sense of history, but if you are analyzing an idea based solely on its validity, it's irrelevant. Humans have some old ideas that are really stupid and I'd argue that social functionalism is usually what lets an idea "hang on" rather than the idea actually having any inherent value. Sexism existed (and exists) for generations because it was functional to those in power, not because it was a good or moral idea.
Quote from: Animated Dirt
however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief. You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions. If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice. Or am I wrong on that?
You're right on most accounts, but there was also another element. I FELT like it couldn't possibly be true (yes! Atheists do base some beliefs and decisions on feelings. Partly.) There was a long period of time when I was probably what you would consider a "doubting Christian" where, intellectually, I couldn't reconcile everything, thought the bible didn't add up, etc. etc. But I still felt like a Christian. Because I "chose" to, because I wanted to and because I just
did.
And then, when I was studying the Holocaust in university, I remember reading a first-hand account about how two nazi soliders saw a Jewish girl walking along a street in the country. They walked up to her and, for no reason whatsoever, one solider took the girl by the arm, the other solider took the girl by the leg, they tore her apart with their bare hands and discarded her body on the side of the road. Then my brain just flicked, like a light-switch, with "Nope! No God. No Jesus. It's bullshit."
I don't know why it happened at that moment, and, as a Christian, I had often defended the horrible things that had happened in the world ( it's not the actions of God, it's the actions of man, we need suffering to have hope, etc etc), but at that moment, EMOTIONALLY, I went from being a conflicted Christian to an atheist. And then everything else fell into place it and it was the best philosophical shift that's ever happened to me.
Now, of course, I don't expect this to "de-convert" you anymore than you could expect to "re-convert" me with a story about religious ecstasy. But it's a real, relevant factor in my not believing any more. Feelings definitely play into it.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Actually, I disagree on this. Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vain that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me? Ideas are ideas; people might like old ideas because it gives them a sense of history, but if you are analyzing an idea based solely on its validity, it's irrelevant. Humans have some old ideas that are really stupid and I'd argue that social functionalism is usually what lets an idea "hang on" rather than the idea actually having any inherent value. Sexism existed (and exists) for generations because it was functional to those in power, not because it was a good or moral idea.
Simply that there is no book's claims to deny, there's no history to deny regardless of some evidence, however slight or non-existent you may think it to be. (evidence for and against is easily found all over online) The FSM makes no claim whatsoever. Sure, you can deny the FSM and you can deny Christ...but one has no evidence, while the other you likely deny the evidence.
There was NEVER a point in your life you believed there to be a FSM...however you say you used to be a Christian.
I'm not married to this point so I can leave it that you deny Christ/God. That's the whole point really.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet
Quote from: Animated Dirt
however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief. You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions. If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice. Or am I wrong on that?
You're right on most accounts, but there was also another element. I FELT like it couldn't possibly be true (yes! Atheists do base some beliefs and decisions on feelings. Partly.) There was a long period of time when I was probably what you would consider a "doubting Christian" where, intellectually, I couldn't reconcile everything, thought the bible didn't add up, etc. etc. But I still felt like a Christian. Because I "chose" to, because I wanted to and because I just did.
And then, when I was studying the Holocaust in university, I remember reading a first-hand account about how two nazi soliders saw a Jewish girl walking along a street in the country. They walked up to her and, for no reason whatsoever, one solider took the girl by the arm, the other solider took the girl by the leg, they tore her apart with their bare hands and discarded her body on the side of the road. Then my brain just flicked, like a light-switch, with "Nope! No God. No Jesus. It's bullshit."
I don't know why it happened at that moment, and, as a Christian, I had often defended the horrible things that had happened in the world ( it's not the actions of God, it's the actions of man, we need suffering to have hope, etc etc), but at that moment, EMOTIONALLY, I went from being a conflicted Christian to an atheist. And then everything else fell into place it and it was the best philosophical shift that's ever happened to me.
Now, of course, I don't expect this to "de-convert" you anymore than you could expect to "re-convert" me with a story about religious ecstasy. But it's a real, relevant factor in my not believing any more. Feelings definitely play into it.
Well, you're not alone in not having all the answers. I don't have them all either. I don't understand how God can love us like his children, yet sit back and allow some things to go on. I don't know...I really don't. I will never understand that THIS side of life. My faith is on what He did for me and them even if they die and even if I die. I want the other life He offers. I want it, so I keep my faith and trust that all will be revealed to me when the time comes. I will not renounce my faith should I read about the acts of Men. I already know what Man is capable of. I'm not easily surprised. I'm just finishing up the book, "Night". I cannot believe the things that book relays as their plight. I also cannot believe that inspite of them being
witness to these atrocities, they (some) remained faithful...deluded? Maybe. If God is, then those that remain faithful will be rewarded with something of vast value..above all they endured. If not, then they simply suffered at the hands of animated stardust.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Do you believe life to be deceptive giving us happiness, family, kids, hobbies...and yet everyone dies? How is death deceptive if you acknowledge that death comes to all. If God isn't. Death. If God is. Death. How can you be decieved?
When I die I cease to exist, I am not confronted by some magical, judgmental, sadistic entity whom proceeds to burn me to death.
That prospect could be scary for a small child, they might be manipulated into following Christianity. For an adult it is just dumb and unnecessary, no different from the chain letter. If the author of the chain letter was at your front door, would you tell them to piss off? If you saw them doing this to your neighbors, would you want to chase them away? This is how I feel when I see someone doing this to me or people in my community.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:47:22 PM
Pascal's Wager is not deceptive. It simply states the facts be one right or the other.
Lets look at Pascal's wager
"An argument according to which belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."
1. How can belief in God be rational when their is no clear definition of what a god is (fact). The only rational answer is to be ignostic (fact).
2. Believing that god exists (falsely or not) leads to many atrocities and much oppression and conflict within society. "Witches" get burned, women oppressed, homosexuals persecuted, atheists hated, people stoned to death, rape victims imprisoned, planes flown into buildings, heretics tortured, wars fought... (fact)
3. Eternal damnation is not a fact, it is a belief that requires absence of facts.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification. I asked a question on her very words. I was banned for being insensitive.
Unfortunately I am not that naive, neither are the HAF admins.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
2. Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?
This is a false dichotomy "either historically true or fairy tales", really AD, do you think you are applying personal integrity in your argument here?
Why do libraries categorise books as Fictional and non Fictional as opposed to Fairy tales and non Fairy tales?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
3. I'm not sure I said you should be grateful. If I did, I shouldn't have. I think you were reading into my words though. You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify. It's your choice.
It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
4. For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell. I simply stated her choice was noted. Her choice. She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.
I am not naive enough to think that it ends there. Her choice, so what? Who cares? Why is it a big deal whether she made a choice or not?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PMbut we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.
I am interested in discussing disbelief in deities, you are interested in discussing belief, you would think we can have some decent debates. But I don't think together we engage in honest explorative discussion, for whatever reason.
Quote from: Stevil on March 15, 2012, 10:49:00 PM
Eternal damnation is not a fact, it is a belief that requires absence of facts.
Eternal damnation as the Bible explains or eternal non-existence as you and I both know to be true. I can drop it here as the point is we both believe in eternal death either way.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification. I asked a question on her very words. I was banned for being insensitive.
Unfortunately I am not that naive, neither are the HAF admins.
We disagree. I don't want to rehash it. I already was punished for it. You win.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
2. Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?
This is a false dichotomy "either historically true or fairy tales", really AD, do you think you are applying personal integrity in your argument here?
Why do libraries categorise books as Fictional and non Fictional as opposed to Fairy tales and non Fairy tales?
Ok. Fiction then. I don't see the difference. Again, you win.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
3. I'm not sure I said you should be grateful. If I did, I shouldn't have. I think you were reading into my words though. You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify. It's your choice.
It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.
If fiction, you are right. If not...Pascal's Wager. You don't like that? Ok. You win again.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
4. For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell. I simply stated her choice was noted. Her choice. She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.
I am not naive enough to think that it ends there. Her choice, so what? Who cares? Why is it a big deal whether she made a choice or not?
Once again. She made a choice. She exercised her freewill.
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PMbut we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.
I am interested in discussing disbelief in deities, you are interested in discussing belief, you would think we can have some decent debates. But I don't think together we engage in honest explorative discussion, for whatever reason.
Once again you seem to misread. If we were "friends", I wouldn't be discussing this with you, therefore we would get along just fine. Don't like that either? Ok. You win. We would not like each other much. Better?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
3. I'm not sure I said you should be grateful. If I did, I shouldn't have. I think you were reading into my words though. You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify. It's your choice.
It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.
If fiction, you are right. If not...Pascal's Wager. You don't like that? Ok. You win again.
Pascal's wager? You're seriously going there? That argument has been shot down so many times, I am surprised you would invoke it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w1.htm
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 10:13:10 PM
Well, you're not alone in not having all the answers. I don't have them all either. I don't understand how God can love us like his children, yet sit back and allow some things to go on. I don't know...I really don't. I will never understand that THIS side of life. My faith is on what He did for me and them even if they die and even if I die. I want the other life He offers. I want it, so I keep my faith and trust that all will be revealed to me when the time comes. I will not renounce my faith should I read about the acts of Men. I already know what Man is capable of. I'm not easily surprised. I'm just finishing up the book, "Night". I cannot believe the things that book relays as their plight. I also cannot believe that inspite of them being witness to these atrocities, they (some) remained faithful...deluded? Maybe. If God is, then those that remain faithful will be rewarded with something of vast value..above all they endured. If not, then they simply suffered at the hands of animated stardust.
Yes, well, all we have here are the actions of humankind. I'll give you that.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:22:05 PM
If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice. Or am I wrong on that?
I think you're wrong on that. Atheism seems to me a default position when you're not given evidence or at least a good reason to believe otherwise. It's hard to say I choose this or that when "this" is an apparently empty space and "that" is saying "this" is an apparently empty space. It's not an authentic choice -- I have no where else to go but "that".
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 09:53:09 PM
Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vain that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me?
I don't know if you have heard of Kevin Crady, he is an ex-Christian, very very smart and articulate and seems to know his bible inside out. He writes some really interesting posts.
Here is an excert from one that might be relevant to your question here.
Quote
...from the Christian point of view, we have free will when it comes to the question of God's existence (i.e. whether he is a factual part of reality or not), but not when it comes to evaluating his character and deciding how to respond to his existence (if he exists).
Why is Christianity set up this way? What does it accomplish?
First of all, it defines the question of God's existence as a moral rather than a factual issue. If you do not believe in the Christian God, and/or believe in some other god(s), you are not merely mistaken or uninformed about the facts, you are morally wrong. To disbelieve in the Christian God is an act of wickedness, a sin. This enables Christian evangelists to bypass critical thought and appeal to guilt, peer pressure, and the like instead of validating their position with reference to facts in reality. "Jesus died for your sins. He loves you so much! How could you disbelieve in Him?" If guilt-tripping doesn't work, this approach has the benefit of legitimizing punishment for disbelief. After all, if disbelief is evil (rather than just mistaken or uninformed) then it is perfectly legitimate for God--or his appointed Spokesmen, from Moses to Torquemada--to apply threats or punishments, just as with any other crime.
We would never consider punishing someone for being wrong about the position of Earth in the Solar System or the existence of phlogiston. The very idea is absurd. But when it comes to religion, it is virtually universally accepted that having the wrong religion or none is a moral offense. Even in countries with vaunted rights of freedom of religion, atheists are inherently suspect (according to a recent survey, we are considered less trustworthy than Islamic suicide bombers), and people who hold to sufficiently foreign religions are criminal. To test this latter proposition, try parading a giant carving of a penis through the streets of New York as part of a fertility rite (as is done in Japan) or starting a church in which magic mushrooms or LSD is taken as a sacrament in order to commune with the Divine.1 Even in the "land of the free" and "secular" Europe, "freedom of relgion" is limited to "religions that Christians can tolerate." 2
And so we come back to the original topic of this thread. By defining the quesiton of God's existence as a moral choice rather than an issue of fact, Christians have implicitly legitimized punishing people for not being Christians. Even those who piously claim that we do not have the authority to do so on Earth3 still hold that God is entitled to punish unbelief with literally infinite severity. With a single stroke, Christians have relieved themselves of the burden of proof they would bear regarding any other claim4 while entitling themselves to use not only guilt manipulation and peer pressure, but force or the threat of force (even if it's just Pascal's Wager) as tools to manufacture assent.
How diabolically clever!
Here is a link to his post so you can read it in context if you want http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4181.msg71031#msg71031 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4181.msg71031#msg71031)
Interesting, thanks Stevil. :)
Cool post Stevil, thanks for adding it. And I agree with him, the way that religions are set up are more than diabolically clever, they're freaking genius when it comes to hijacking people's mental makeup.
As a side note (and going back to chain mail), I know intelligent people who still pass on their mail, even though I suspect they know that the odds of there being a causal link between not sending it and dying is practically zero. I think it has to do with much more piece of mind than actual "reasoned" belief, though in a way that is very similar to Pascal's Wager for Chain Mail. Costs a few seconds to send and probably a few minutes to read annoyed replies in contrast to not sending it and having compulsive thoughts about what might happen and "what ifs".
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 16, 2012, 01:35:58 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:22:05 PM
If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice. Or am I wrong on that?
I think you're wrong on that. Atheism seems to me a default position when you're not given evidence or at least a good reason to believe otherwise. It's hard to say I choose this or that when "this" is an apparently empty space and "that" is saying "this" is an apparently empty space. It's not an authentic choice -- I have no where else to go but "that".
I don't quite agree that atheism is always the default position, I'm more of the opinion that given the right circumstances, people will become religious in some form, evolutionarily speaking
without the coercion or indoctrination of a manipulator. Of course, religions do take on a life of their own once they have a class of parasitic manipulators and indoctrinators, but that's at a later stage.
Apparently not everybody places as much importance on real (scientific) evidence as others.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 16, 2012, 03:56:15 AM
As a side note (and going back to chain mail), I know intelligent people who still pass on their mail, even though I suspect they know that the odds of there being a causal link between not sending it and dying is practically zero. I think it has to do with much more piece of mind than actual "reasoned" belief, though in a way that is very similar to Pascal's Wager for Chain Mail. Costs a few seconds to send and probably a few minutes to read annoyed replies in contrast to not sending it and having compulsive thoughts about what might happen and "what ifs".
Just wanted to respond to this. :) I rarely ever send on chain mail (never letters, what with the cost of stamps!). But sometimes, I'll send on a chain e-mail, never one of those 'do this or you'll die' emails -- I actually don't seem to get those. But I do sometimes get 'forward this to all your friends and the one who sent it to you, so that you know you have a circle of friends' type of chain letters. So, why do I send that along? Because usually, I might read one of those emails and it has a really cute poem, or story, or picture in it. I try to make it less annoying, though -- if I can, I remove ANY references to it being a chain letter at all, and just send the story. But hey, even if I didn't remove the chain letter reference... I suppose I can see someone happily forwarding along a 'good' chain-mail letter, in the hopes that something good will happen to them. :) Like you said, it just costs a couple seconds to send.