patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,247,030 comments by 14,880 users - AmericanKulak, HeadSet, Patrick, PeopleUnited, SoTex online now
Reasons why people want to believe in God.
invite response
2012 Oct 22, 10:35am 58,916 views 143 comments
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 143 Next » Last » Search these comments
Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion...
Sorry, but this is a non-sense. "Believing in religion" is like "believing in believes". Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 8:49am
Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?
I have no fear of mentioning God, whether your particular version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other, although I recognize that Jehovah's Witnesses and certain Jewish sects are prohibited from saying or even writing "God". (This is one reason why injecting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s caused immediate division, resulting in a Supreme Court case saying kids can't be required to say that, which may be one reason why religious fundamentalists crusade against "activist judges.") But, I tend to refer to religion rather than any one god, because I don't see a reason to take sides. To refer to "God" the way you do seems to presuppose the existence and validity of exactly one, perhaps Jehovah, while in other contexts it would refer to Allah. I don't fear any of the gods or their names, but their adherents do cause me some concern, especially Muslims and Morons.
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 8:54am
Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com
Actually the reason I didn't click on his link is it seems to include some sort of tracking code. Since you work in that field, I'd be very curious to know what you think about it, and whether tinyurl might actually conceal such codes.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 9:04am
BTW, I'd like to share this
I am a Christian, and as a Christian there are certain things which I believe to be moral and others that I believe to be immoral. What I DO NOT believe in is alienating those who have differing beliefs and trying to force my moral beliefs onto them through laws. If one definition of the “moral choice†was meant to be the only option, human beings would not have been created with free will. I do not believe it is my job as a Christian to push certain causes. I do believe that it is my task to love those on both sides of the issues, whether their definition of “right†aligns with mine or not.
1. Everyone has a sense of morality and moral beliefs. Being a Christian is irrelevant. I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.
2. I agree that morality should not be forced upon others by law. I'd even go further as to say that morality should not even affect laws. However, rights should determine laws and rights and morality sometimes overlap. For example, it isn't illegal to murder a person because it's immoral to do so, although clearly it is immoral. It's illegal to murder a person because you are violating his right to live. Rights serve as the basis of all laws including environmental ones.
3. Human beings weren't created with free will, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. There's already a thread for that. Check under religion. In any case, the concept of free will, meaningless as it is, should have no bearing on the practicality or theory of law, rights, and deterrence.
4. There is nothing wrong with "pushing" certain causes as long as the cause is just and the way you are pushing it is as well. I push for social justice, responsible management of resources, and civil and human rights, and rational thinking. I push quite strongly for these causes, pissing off quite a few people on this site. But I always "push" ethically and genuinely. I never deceive or try to trick someone into accepting my argument as I believe reasons are more important than conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with a Christian pushing for a just cause, but I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion. Of course, those who believe that faith is a virtual would have to disagree with me. I personally consider faith to be a vice.
5. One can passionately disagree with another person without hating that person or thinking that person is an idiot, especially if one accepts the principle that reasons are more important than conclusions. For example, I could disagree on economic issues with another rationalist simply because our priorities are different. I may value stability more than opportunity, and the other rationalist might hold the opposite value. Nevertheless, as long as we're both rational, neither one of us will despise the other person.
As for love, that is simply an emotion and therefore neither a prerequisite for interacting with others or necessarily helpful. One can be cooperative with others without experiencing the emotion of platonic love, and to say that one loves everybody is simply a lie and it cheapens the meaning of the word. The human brain simply does not behave like that. One can act compassionately towards everyone in the world, but that's an entirely different thing. I can certainly be compassionate and help another person in distress without being emotionally involved with that individual.
But I always "push" ethically and genuinely.
No offence, but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.
I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.
I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.
As for love, that is simply an emotion...
Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own (including your emotions) for the sake of someone or something else. I know for sure that's what this girl meant in her post, and since you took it from the post of that girl it would be only intelectually honest to use words in the sense she uses them.
I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion
I would like to see your definition of the term "just". I'm used to the meaning from Psalter, but I suspect yours may be way different.
Oh, there is also one used in the games theory. It's extremely subjective. A player considers a game just, when he has a strategy to end it with a positive profit. No fixed sum game may be just for all players. Materialist games are usually fixed sum games.
Would you clarify what you call just in this case?
BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause. Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.
I have endless number of such examples.
curious2
2012 Oct 29, 9:58am
Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause.
That is a very interesting example, and in fact senior officers within the American military argued the same point at the time. People who lived through that era told me, "It was a desperate war." I think the war accomplished a mix of results, some just (e.g., ending the Holocaust and Occupation) and others not (e.g., Soviet conquest of eastern Europe). I would point to other examples from other wars (e.g. Andersonville) to show that wars are like fires: however just the original merits of the cause may have been, the context of war can quickly devolve into unjust means. Yet, some have pointed to precisely that WWII example as a moment when America's moral compass seemed to lose some of its bearing.
Returning to the original topic though, it reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. When people are presented with a difficult question, they tend to substitute an easier question instead. It happens all the time when asking people to guess at likelihoods, because statistics are hard; people tend to answer based on the ease of recalling familiar examples, which is often a predictably wrong answer. The question of what is just, in the context of occupied Europe and the Holocaust, is difficult. With so many people getting killed and maimed, and a Treasury unable to sustain the war effort much longer, what is the least unjust result? That is a hard question. Asking instead, "What does our religion say," may be an easier question, but ease doesn't make it a better question or even an adequate substitute.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 2:29pm
but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.
Then change your interpretation of reality to reflect actual reality. Nothing I can do about communication errors on your end.
I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.
When I have time, I'll write about how moral systems should be structured.
Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own
You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.
Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
The willingness to sacrifice oneself for another may be the result of an emotion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. In fact, the entire purpose of emotions is to elicit certain behaviors in animals in response to certain situations.
We can model emotions, confirm their existence in various species, and even age them, i.e. determine when they evolved.
I would like to see your definition of the term "just".
I believe I used the term social justice rather than justice, which mean different things, but I'll define both in a reasonable way. I personally don't believe in nit-picking on definitions as nomenclature is not important, ideas are.
Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.
Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.
Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles
1. Rights not privileges. All persons have the same exact rights and no person has any privileges.
2. Truth before agendas. The truth may never be covered "for the greater good".
3. Transparency in all government.
4. Equality of opportunity, the lack of a class or caste system, removal of barriers to entry including the use of money and power to stifle competition of businesses, politics, or ideas.
5. Preservation of public resources including the air, land, sea, and biodiversity of the planet.
6. Structuring systems such that the self-interests of individuals complement rather than compete with the interests of society as a whole.
7. Elimination of parasitic behavior, rent-seeking, and economic hostage taking.
8. Emphasis on sustainability and efficiency rather than exploitation and short-term wealth generation.
Now, you are going to get a lot more variance in what people consider to "social justice" to be, especially because most people who use that term are artsy-fartsy types. I, however, am not.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 29, 2:30pm
BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.
Of course if one uses evil to accomplish a good goal, the evil more often than not outweighs the good. However, that does not mean there are just and unjust goals. Here's a simple counter-example that shows the flaw in your statements.
Consider one and only one means: pushing a button. Now hook up the effect of that button to one of two outcomes. In scenario one, pushing the button will release a puppy that is tied to railroad tracks, saving the puppy's life. In scenario two, pushing the button will drop a puppy onto the railroad tracks as a train is coming, killing the puppy.
Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios, one can easily see that the goal of saving the puppy is just and the goal of killing the puppy is unjust even though the means are exactly the same and thus must be either both just, unjust, or neutral.
Clearly then, a goal in itself can be just or unjust. Again, do not confuse this conclusion with the entirely different statement that the ends justify the means.
Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.
On that we agree. I've always held Truman to be a war criminal.
Of course, if you want to deal with real moral dilemmas, consider the following.
There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button? Do you murder Hitler in order to save millions of other lives, innocent ones?
Second scenario... This time the button kills Hitler's mom when she was a little girl. Do you still push the button? Do you kill an innocent girl to prevent her from giving birth to a genocidal maniac? What if the button killed Hitler's grandmother or great-great-great-great grandmother?
You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.
Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.
As I already pointed out, your argument is intellectually dishonest, because you took the word "love" out of the context and interpret it in a way different from the way the author of the text you discuss used it.
Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios
This is the most misleading assumption in real life situations.
There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button?
My answer is "no"! The rest of your hypothetic scenario is obsolete.
Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.
Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.
I wonder why anyone would care about this?
Especially puzzling why do you care about it?
Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles
Well, you define social justice in details. But why do you think it is good?
Socially unjust systems may become today way more efficient than socially just ones. What's wrong about them? Assuming you have a chance to get into a social elite, why would you oppose such a system? Please try to avoid joggling synonyms, like just is fair or equal.
Well, I will tell you why, since you do not reply. It's because your believes come out of Christian humanism. Yes, however pervert and stripped of their roots they are still by-product of the Christianity.
Gracer,
I can't accept your picture.
First of all you describe Jesus Christ as some kind of a tool. That's may be in line with the Calvinist doctrine, but it disagrees with the traditional Church teaching, that Christ is a person with free will, who has a full authority to decide at his judgment whom he likes to stay with him and whom he does not want to accept.
The most ancient Church reading on the matter consists of a parable about the ultimate Christ judgement recorded in Matthew 25:31-46. It says nothing about "a belief in Christ" or about being destined to 'hell'. The judgment is done exclusively on the basis of ones love of his neighbor. (Of course, the love in the sense Church uses it, not on the basis of Dan's "emotion".)
Well, let me cite it, though the translation i've found is far from ideal.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.â€
marcus
2012 Oct 30, 1:00pm
Gracer,
I can't accept your picture.
Neither can I.
While I have defended believers around here on many occasions, the belief that "only by accepting Jesus" can one go to heaven, and that if there is a God, "he" would say that this is more important than your actions and how you treat others,....is on its face illogical and ridiculous.
Dogma that is only designed to increase the size and power of a religion is not interesting to me. Further more, I believe that the real Jesus would be deeply offended that such things were said in his name.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 2:46pm
your argument is intellectually dishonest
Disagree with me all you want, but if you call me dishonest you're either a liar or a fool. There is nothing I write that isn't what I honestly believe to be true and accurate. Even if I'm wrong, I'm at least honestly wrong.
And I stand by what I said. Love is an emotion, not some mystical force. It has no supernatural powers.
This is the most misleading assumption in real life situations.
1. Your statement is meaningless since this is simply a thought experiment and has no analog "in real life".
2. Even if there were analogs and most of them involved the impossibility of knowing what the button did, this would be irrelevant to this thought experiment. The purpose of the experiment is to think about the morality of the decision, the means, and the goals given full knowledge.
You are simply trying to avoid answering the questions. If you have no answer because you cannot figure out how to satisfactory address the dilemma, then simply have the honesty to say, "I don't know.". That's a perfectly acceptable answer. If you gave such an answer, you could proceed to listening to other answers and evaluating them. If you simply ignore the question and pretend it doesn't exist, you close off the possibility of deepening your understanding of morality by studying the dilemma.
However, your response does illustrate why the Bible is so god-awful at presenting a moral framework. The Bible was written for simple-minded, illiterate buffoons who could not possibly deal with difficult moral dilemmas and imperfect options. As such, all morality in the Bible has to be two-dimensional.
This is yet another critical reason to abandon religion and embrace modern thought, mathematics, and reasoning as the basis of morality. The modern world is simply too complicated and intertwined to apply childish morality, and it's only going to get even more complicated as we have to deal with things like
- intelligent non-human life on Earth (dolphins, chimps, etc.)
- intelligent extraterrestrial life including lifeforms without technology
- sentient artificial life
- humans who replace their organic brains with synthetic neural nets
Now that might sound like science fiction to you, but science fiction has a tendency to become scientific fact. Eventually, humanity is going to have to deal with these things and others far more alien to us, and Bronzed Age morality isn't going to work.
Don't ignore the dilemma I presented because it's hard to deal with. Address the dilemma precisely because it's hard.
My answer is "no"! The rest of your hypothetic scenario is obsolete.
Obsolete?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
In any case, by choosing not to push the button, you have chosen to allow the Holocaust to happen. So let's add another scenario. This time, if you push the button, you save Hitler's life and cause the Holocaust. If you do not push the button, Hitler dies as he would have in the previous scenario if you had pushed the button. Do you push the button now?
Hint: If you are really smart, you'll understand that this question is essentially the same as the previous one. If you had answered "no" before, then an honest answer would now be "yes". Conversely, a previous "yes" is equivalent to a "no" in this scenario. Answering both scenarios, which are essentially mirror images, is simply an inconsistency reflecting a lack of understanding of the question. The point is that the decision is what's important, not whether that decision is executed by action or inaction.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 2:48pm
I wonder why anyone would care about this?
Especially puzzling why do you care about it?
Because it affects how government is ran, what laws are created, what wars are fought, how business is conducted, the quality of medical care you receive, etc.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 2:54pm
Well, I will tell you why, since you do not reply. It's because your believes come out of Christian humanism. Yes, however pervert and stripped of their roots they are still by-product of the Christianity.
Whoa, first off, just because I don't reply the minute you post something, doesn't mean I'm avoiding the question. I do have a day job. It's not like I spend every second of my life on patrick.net.
Second, I can assure you that my moral beliefs and principles are not based on Christian mythology or brain-washing. Christianity certainly has no monopoly on the principles I hold or any principle accepted by people in general. If anything, the history of Christianity shows the practice of rejecting the principles Christians claim to have. The most evangelical of Christians in our country are also the ones most supportive of the death penalty, a clear violation of both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill" and the New Testament "Turn the other cheek, do good to those who hurt you, love your enemies" dribble.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 3:02pm
Well, you define social justice in details. But why do you think it is good?
Principles are a kind of opinion. They cannot be justified as "good" or "evil" but simply are either accepted or rejected. One cannot prove that it is evil to drown puppies. Once simply accepts this premise.
However, one can most certainly determine through reasoning, simulation, or models how a set of principles, if accepted and incorporated into culture or government, will affect society. Although principles are essentially assumptions, they are not arbitrary and they have determinable effects.
For example, the principle that one does not kill other members of ones species/tribe/nation/clan/troop/community is pretty much essential for social living and the very tangible benefits that come from social living such as resource sharing, safety in numbers, collective defense, distribution of work, etc. As such, it should not be surprising that humans and other species that live in social communities have a taboo about killing others within the community. It makes evolutionary sense. Now spiders and other solitary creatures might have a significantly different sense of morality.
There are tangible benefits to social justice including
- decrease war
- decrease poverty
- decrease violent crime (the number 1 cause of violent crime is poverty)
- better education
- better economics due to all of the above
And that's just to name a few things. Ultimately, seeking social justice maximizes long-term benefits at the cost of short-term ones, and I consider that a good trade-off.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 3:10pm
Socially unjust systems may become today way more efficient than socially just ones. What's wrong about them? Assuming you have a chance to get into a social elite, why would you oppose such a system?
1. As socially unjust systems are typically so because they trade off society's long-term interests for an individual's short-term interests, they are almost by definition inefficient.
2. What's wrong with socially unjust systems is that they harm many individuals. In fact, they do more harm to their victims than they benefit their benefactors. The total happiness displacement is always heavily negative.
3. I often support changes that aren't in my person self-interest but are in the better long-term interest of the world. For example, I support a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions and pay for either carbon sequestering or clean energy technology. Doing so is clearly not in my selfish interests as I will pay more for gas and electricity, but I'm unlikely to see the real benefits in my lifetime. However, I still support such a tax because it will benefit future generations not yet even born. I like the idea of leaving the world a better place than I found it, but hey, that's just me.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 3:20pm
there are forces of the universe at work that make hell a certainty for an unbeliever in Christ, unless that person becomes immunized by faith in Christ.
Nothing about the Christian afterlife myth makes sense and there is no way to square that circle. God is just but whether or not you burn for all eternity is determined by whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, which in turn is determined almost completely by what society you are born into. If you were born to Christian parents, you'll probably go to heaven. But if you were born Muslim or Hindu, you're fucked. An accident of birth determines whether or not you will suffer for all eternity, and the Christian god is supposed to be just?
A man and a woman gets married. The man dies. Later the woman marries another man. Eventually they both die. Isn't that going to be awkward in the afterlife? Even Jesus pussied away from addressing this dilemma. The inescapable conclusion is that human beings simply cannot experience permanent bliss because we have conflicting interests. Take away those interests, and we are no longer who we are. Sorry, but the human mind simply cannot handle paradise. The Matrix proved that.
Dan8267
2012 Oct 30, 3:27pm
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Which is why anyone who actually believed in the alleged teachings of Christ would not have wanted Osama bin Laden killed or prosecuted for 9/11. A true Christian would have forgiven Osama and offered an olive branch, or in the least, accepted the olive branch Osama offered after 9/11. Hell, I'm an atheist and I think the wiser path would have been to make peace with Osama, admit both sides did evil things, bury the hatchet, and work together to end violence. It would have made the world a much safer place than simply killing him. However, the vast majority of Christians disagree with me and Christ.
In any case, by choosing not to push the button, you have chosen to allow the Holocaust to happen.
Dan,
1. all your questions are based on the assumption one knows the exact outcome of ones actions. It is a wrong assumption;
2. by introducing such a button you change the world and nothing would happen in the same way it happened in the history we live in;
3. you use a token word of Holocaust as an absolute evil, however it was created after WW2 by the winners and with the purpose to justify their own crimes. Just imagine Hitler winning WW2, we probably would call Holocaust the persecution and murder of millions of Russians and Ukrainians by the Jewish communists.
would not have wanted Osama bin Laden killed or prosecuted for 9/11. A true Christian would have forgiven Osama and offered an olive branch,
Forgiving Osama bin Laden as a person does not exclude a need to persecute him for his crime. But we also need to remember that he was a creature of CIA and his murder looks more like a cover up operation than an attempt to persecute him. Maybe I'm wrong, but until I see all materials published and all officials investigated for their role in 9/11, especially members of the Bush administration, I have no reason for changing my opinion.
michaelsch says
your argument is intellectually dishonest
Disagree with me all you want, but if you call me dishonest you're either a liar or a fool.
Hey, don't you see a difference between calling ones argument intellectually dishonest and and calling a person dishonest?
Dan8267 says
Nothing about the Christian afterlife myth makes sense and there is no way to square that circle. God is just but whether or not you burn for all eternity is determined by whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, which in turn is determined almost completely by what society you are born into.
Frankly I'm getting tired of your arguments. You beat a straw man to death and think you hit Christian believes. Christianity does not have any afterlife myth. It is about eternal life, not the "after"- or "before"-life.
marcus
2012 Oct 31, 12:04am
Maybe heaven and hell only allude to the quality of life you will have have here in this life. THe rewards for being a good person are subtle and hard to explain to a child or to the typical ignorant person. So this idea of heaven and hell is there for those who can't understand how their actions, behavior, and attitude can make their lives a heaven or a hell.
And maybe in some different way of comprehending time, this life is an eternity.
God saw a need to save mankind from hell
Unlike Dan, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the current state of the world would be better or worse if Christianity had never existed. But I think it's safe to say it would be different.
Jesus' crucifixion did impact the actual existence of Christianity, regardless of whether your interpretation of why he was crucified is met.
if there is no hell or separation from God in the afterlife,
gracer, Christian crede says:
"I look for the resurection of the dead and the life of the new world (or sometimes translated as the age to come)."
st. John the Teologian calls it "New heaven and new earth." I think it's obvious we talk about the new space and new time here.
"Afterlife" you use is quite misleading.
As of the hell, there is an ancient parable about it:
Hell is like a room with a long table with all kind of good food. People are sitting at that table and try to get the food but can't bend their arms. They are struggling and starving there.
So, what is Heaven?
Heaven is like a room with a long table with all kind of good food. People are sitting at that table and can't bend their arms...
So they feed one another.
Dan8267
2012 Nov 2, 2:36pm
all your questions are based on the assumption one knows the exact outcome of ones actions. It is a wrong assumption;
The questions about the thought experiment may do so because that is the premise of the thought experiment. A thought experiment does not have to reflect the complexities of realities in order to gain insight on the subject of the experiment.
Don't let that stop you from attempting to answer the questions as best you can. The mere exercise of attempting to address the dilemmas will reveal more about the nature of morality than any holy book.
Forgiving Osama bin Laden as a person does not exclude a need to persecute him for his crime.
One cannot take vengeance or punish a person after forgiving him, by definition. To do so is to not forgive the person.
Who ever said forgiving was supposed to be easy? But if you really believe in the alleged teachings of Jesus Christ, it's a no-brainer. Osama bin Laden should not have been killed or prosecuted, but rather unconditionally forgiven.
I understand that the Christian right want to have it both ways, but its a contradiction. You can't satisfy blood lust and follow Jesus's teachings. Clearly, most Christians are just into the mythology and authoritarianism, not the real morality.
Hey, don't you see a difference between calling ones argument intellectually dishonest and and calling a person dishonest?
To make a dishonest argument is to be dishonest. Lying to yourself is still lying.
Of course, some people disagree with me on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn_PSJsl0LQ
You beat a straw man to death and think you hit Christian believes. Christianity does not have any afterlife myth. It is about eternal life, not the "after"- or "before"-life
You think I'm making a Straw Man argument because Christian religions teach there is "eternal" life instead of an "after" life? Well, that's some semantic gymnastics you're doing.
Hey, I may be an atheist now, but I spent 18 years going to a Christian church, attending Christian schools, being taught by nuns and Christian brothers. I know Christian mythology.
Call it what you want, Christian mythology is that after you die, you go to heaven or hell (or purgatory in some sects, or limbo in Catholicism until recently). And after purgatory/limbo, you eventually end in heaven. So you live in heaven or hell for all eternity after death. It's pretty clear on that. In fact, the fear of hell and the carrot of heaven is pretty much the entire motive to stay in line and obey the church, which speaks for god.
Now if you don't want to call that an afterlife, fine. I don't care about nomenclature. But the bottom line is that neither heaven nor hell makes jack shit sense. There is nothing a human being can possibly do to deserve an eternity of suffering. Nor is there any way human beings could have perfect bliss for all eternity and still be the person they are now. Eternal bliss would be like a fake, crack high.
curious2
2012 Nov 2, 6:08pm
So they feed one another.
When I first heard that story, it was attributed to Viet Namese mythology. Christianity has tended to adopt stories and holidays from other traditions, and philosophies from other sources, and then pass them off as if invented by Christianity. Morality and moral philosophy seem an ironic focus for Christianity, which claims credit for a largely unnatural morality that it did not invent. A comment in another thread interested me though and has got me reading more about Nietzsche, who blamed Christianity for popularizing a secondary morality based on intentions in contrast to primary morality based on consequences.
So they feed one another.
When I first heard that story, it was attributed to Viet Namese mythology. Christianity has tended to adopt stories and holidays from other traditions, and philosophies from other sources, and then pass them off as if invented by Christianity. Morality and moral philosophy seem an ironic focus for Christianity, which claims credit for a largely unnatural morality that it did not invent. A comment in another thread interested me though and has got me reading more about Nietzsche, who blamed Christianity for popularizing a secondary morality based on intentions in contrast to primary morality based on consequences.
When I first heard it it was attributed to the eastern Nestorian tradition, later on I read that is is a known Tibetian parable. BTW, this is not neccessary a contradiction, since there were many cross-relations between them. I did not say it is a Christian parable in my post. All I've said there is an ancient parable. It indeed reflects the Orthodox believe that there is no inherent difference between the Hell and Heaven, but only the difference in how people interact with the Real world of the New Earth.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with the ability to adopt good things from other traditions. Such an ability would be very beneficial to our Western arrogance, both Christian and Atheist.
curious2
2012 Nov 27, 6:09am
I don't see anything wrong with the ability to adopt good things from other traditions. Such an ability would be very beneficial to our Western arrogance....
I agree, and I happily acknowledge learning from some of your comments, and Dan's too. If the tone of my earlier post sounded peeved, that was based on a history of certain Christians claiming credit for things they did not invent and do not own exclusively, e.g. morality, and their tendency to re-write their own history in order to take over events (e.g. Christmas) and present the revision as literal history even though it isn't. It would be perfectly honest to say, the Pagans had a winter solstice festival and that seemed like a nice time for a holiday, and Christians didn't have a specific birthday for Jesus, so it was decided to set that holiday to coincide cooperatively with the earlier Pagan tradition. Alas a great many were converted by the sword, and their history buried deliberately with them, which wasn't so agreeable.
leo707
2012 Nov 27, 9:45am
ok, where is the scientific proof of a God? there is no physical proof.
Correct.
you want to see proof of something before you believe in it.
Yes.
the proof will be what you know in your own soul when you put your faith in Jesus Christ.
Faith = belief
I can't get this "proof" without belief and I can not believe that the Christian bible is true without proof.
I remain unconvinced.
their tendency to re-write their own history in order to take over events (e.g. Christmas) and present the revision as literal history even though it isn't.
Well, I think it's misrepresented. The Church never claims it knew when Jesus was born. First of all, in ancient time people paid no attention to such a nuisanse as a baby birth, birthday celebration is a relatively new phenomenon. The history of fixing the Nativity of Christ date in Europe is well known.
I maybe forgot some details but it happened in Europe, where there was an old winter feast period called Yule or similarly. It happened around the winter solstice. There was an ancient Christian celebration of the Theophany/Epiphany/Baptism of Jesus celebrated on Jan 6th. So the Church tried to "chistianize" the Yule celebration by extending its own feast. Initially it was all twelve days of celebrations of Theophany = appearance of God. (Therefore the 12 days of Christmas)
Later on Western Church somehow made the Dec 25th its main Holyday and pretty much forgot about the origins of this. Armenians, for example, still have a single celebration, which fall on Jan. 19th of Gregorian calender (our common one) and it is Jan 6th Julian calendar.
There was an additional development in Europe, which incorporated st. Nikolas -- a bysantine saint known for giving to the poor in the celebration. (He used to be commemorated in December). Together with the wise men from the East it created the gifts tradition.
The next development happened in the USA, when the preparation and fasting period prior to Christmas was completely forgotten and replaced with a constant festival before Christmas.
Finally, in the USA and now it spreads thru the world we got back an old pagan Holyday with only commercial meaning.
Even better the process may be illustrated by the Halloween, which was an old Celtic thing. Western Church tried to make an all saints day out of it and now it's back to what it used to be. Well maybe still without some cruel Celtic rituals.
All this has nothing to do with re-writing any history, since there was never any history related to the date of birth of Jesus. It definitely is an attempt to incorporate other traditions. Why not? BTW, it's very American approach. :)
Also an interesting question is about what year Jesus was born. Based on the fact that it had to be during last years of Herod the Great it could only happen no later than 4bc. The most common estimate is between 7bc and 4bc.
BTW, Christmas tree came from the same Northern Europe tradition. For example, it was unknown in Russia till the 18th century.
However I think it is beautiful.
curious2
2012 Nov 29, 8:04am
The Church never claims it knew when Jesus was born.
Thank you for the very interesting history synopsis but I must ask, Which Christian church never claims it knew when Jesus was born? I remember the Christmas carols, for example, "our Savior was born upon this day." (Checking online, I find "Christ, our Saviour Was born on Christmas day.") And of course the nativity scenes that are the subject of endless political quarrels when a "moral majority" faction takes over city hall and turns it into a theater of three kings with spices and whatnot. (Somehow the presenters never get around to giving out any actual spices, only revisionist history lessons.)
One good reason I will offer for why people want to believe in a God, it can help with civility, especially online. If people make a sincere effort to see each person as having been created in the unique image and likeness of God, and consider that God is watching them as they type, it can help promote civility in personal relationships and even online. Otherwise the Internet becomes a virtual Tower of Babel, which seems nearer the literal reality.
I remember the Christmas carols, for example, "our Savior was born upon this day."
Come on, can't you separate poetry from historic claims? Celebrations usually associate themselves with the event they celebrate. Personally, I may celebrate the Nativity of Christ on Dec 25th, or on Jan 7th, or on any date that I attend a service of this celebration, which may be any day between Dec 25th and Jan 18th, depends on the calender of a particular community. For each one of them singing "our Savior was born upon this day." or anything similar would be perfectly valid even if in reality Jesus was born on May 14th of the 5th year BC.
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 143 Next » Last » Search these comments
I'm teaching a religion class in a Sunday school.
Last Sunday I tried to give my pupils (10-12 y.o)an assignment to find out why some people want to believe in God. I asked them to write about it from both perspective: of those who think they do believe and those who think they don't.
Their reaction was:
--but how will we find out?
me--Ask your friends.
--Where?
me--Ask other kids at your school, i'm sure you'll find some atheist there.
They shouting (5 or six at once)
--IT IS FORBIDDEN TO TALK ABOUT RELIGION IN SCHOOL!!!!
The rest of the conversation is not very important, but it boils down to the fact that there is no way to openly talk about this in American society.
So, I want to ask you here to tell what are possible reasons people want to believe in God. Any opinion would be very valuable. Religious atheists are more than welcome!