Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'You will burn in hell'


JJ50

Recommended Posts

No matter how much time you spend in heaven you will never have been there for an infinity of time. There will always be a future and a past.

Now if you are a Buddha and go to Nirvana and enter timeless, formless bliss, then I don't know for sure.

Time is nature of a life process.

A life process which has a beginning and a end is Mortal [Finite]

A life process which has a beginning and continues perpetually without end is Immortal [infinite]

A life process which has no beginning nor end is Eternal [Eternal] This is the only nature which is timeless and the only nature that can be timeless.

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A youtube clip does not rest your case, it just shows you are a follower of youtube clips.

All hail to the Youtube clip...

Ohm!

Ohm!

Ohm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That however has little to do with the point I was making about whether the Christian scheme, when taken in its most moderate form, is just. Here we have a God able to extend life indefinitely, and he doesn't do so, for what seem arbitrary and utterly unjust reasons -- that people don't believe his nonsensical human sacrifice. Further, they commit sins and are punished in eternity for the sins of a short lifetime. This is not justice

Frank,

I see what you are saying here, and yet I can't help but see so many problems with these statements.

First of all, by what criteria are you defining what is just or unjust? If the atheistic, naturalist worldview is correct than BOTH of those concepts are COMPLETELY arbitrary. There's no justifiable basis for this claim other than perhaps favoring one social construct over another.

Second, if we were to assume that there is an absolute right and wrong; what kind of justice do you prefer? By your own logic; should killers and rapists walk free? Shouldn't evil deeds merit some sort of punishment, some sort of justice? Therefore; why is it wrong to believe in a God who righteously judges? There are untold millions and millions of people who have been wronged in this life and justice was never done. The victims of all manner of evil cry out for justice; would you deny them that? I'm sorry but the above claims are so relativistic as to be nonsensical. Do you think someone like an Anne Frank or an Elie Wiesel would want to believe in a God of justice; a God of NO justice who rewards good and evil as being alike....or a naturalist system in which justice doesn't exist at all, because good and evil themselves don't really exist?

Third, if God just extends the life of everyone indefinitely and there are no distinctions; this presupposes the fact that human choice, and the consequences of choice must be removed. If you were a theist, essentially what you would be arguing for is a deterministic system in which humanity is nothing more than God's wind up toy. Would you not rather have choice?

Fourth, I have seen you espouse a kind of Buddhism on other threads. How is the Christian system so different than the Buddhist system? Buddhist philosophy on attachment and becoming is quite similar to the Christian notion of sin; we exist in a state of perpetual Samsara and delusion because we cannot shake our attachments; which causes us suffering; and to suffer life after life after life. Both the Christian and the Buddhist would argue that there is something wrong with human nature and that it causes suffering; whether its in this life, in another realm, or in continued incarnations.

Fifth, I don't think it is certain that any kind of hell or punishment is even infinite as you suggest. I don't think we have a solid basis to make that claim. Muslims for example believe that hell is a cleansing place; figuratively speaking we go into the steam room and sweat out the evil for a time; but all will eventually be redeemed. So an eternal hell is by no means unanimous even among theists; thus it would be fallacious to assume that all theists believe that to be the case.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. Your objections are most reasonable; I hope this at least clarifies my position on the matter. Be well....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a lie be the truth?

I am lying.

Is that true or false? Prove your answer.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each species seems to have a natural maximum lifespan, which varies considerably. To me this is evidence that senescence and death are programmed by our genes, and is changeable by natural and even artificial selection.

For most species, particularly our own, that's probably true. But some trees' lifespans seem to be limited only by environmental hazard.

It is said that all things fear time and time fears the pyramids. But the pyramids are only about 4300 years old. There are at least a dozen older trees. And then there's Clone Pando whose age has been estimated at one million years (At least, they got it down to an order of magnitude.). And there's an 80-acre fungus in Oregon that hasn't been dated yet.

If you want to get an idea of what "infinity" might be like, study trees. A single organism that is older than history, older than civilization, that stands within sight of what may have been the Tower of Babel. A single still-living clone that was living before we were a species and has been around five times longer than we have. A tree so old that the mountain is eroding out from under it. Trees that saw TWO ice ages come and go.

Religion is as nothing when one looks at the natural world.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism has nothing to do with my statement at all.Jesus was a sacrifice for Sin atonement, and to deny that is to deny Jesus.

I know you do not deny Jesus.

Sin with unseen agent enforcers goes way back, which does not make it true, and has been a usefull tool.

It's "Cherry Picking" to me, and a way to keep bygone superstition on life support in an age people are waking up to the stench.

Your "inclusive approach" is just spin doctoring a mind clamp that prevents people from understanding the world.Just because you ignore what your Book represents by making sound hip, and full of deep thought, just makes it even more disgusting.

When people are engaged in the evidence of how things are in this world, the more genuine a healthy society becomes.There is no need for the filth of Religion, Pornography, heavy drugs, gambling, and sucking up nonrenewable resources like there is no tomorrow.

I know you and I 'dislike' each other (although that dislike probably exists more on your end than mine) but I actually appreciated the sincerity and bluntness of this post. I think you did a good job here of clarifying your position and why you are so hostile to religion; something I've been wanting to see from you for a long time. It's nice to hear what YOU have to say as opposed to the thoughts or links to someone else.

There are a few points I'd like to address; that naturally you will be 'disgusted' by; but I post not just for you but for other readers to draw their own conclusions.

First you say that stances like mine (and probably people like LibstaK as well) are what keeps religion on life support as people are waking up to the 'stench.' Davros, I disagree here because I believe there is an objective truth and an objective reality; but that 'truth' for man IS by in large subjective and therefore relativistic. What I mean by that is yes, in a humanistic sense we are evolving and that life is generally improving. But I ALSO believe that our understanding of religion is evolving. So in a sense, I think it is entirely possible to be both a humanist and a follower of religion. The goal of any individual or institution should be to realize their mistakes and grow from them. I think we have done that. Look at what Pope Francis is doing in the Holy Land right now, for example. We've come a long way from the crusades; because our understanding is evolving. Intrinsically we are flawed; I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with human nature; but this is not to say that we can't learn and grow from our mistakes. Religion isn't clinging to life support; it's evolving and changing because change is necessary. Everything IS change.

Second, you say my theology is a mind clamp that prevents us from understanding the world. I would charge the same thing of you; the naturalist and the atheist. From the naturalist perspective I would counter and say that if we live in the closed system in which you suggest; how can I trust my own logical faculties? How do I know that anything you say is even true; or that truth even exists in any objective sense? From the atheist perspective the ultimate understanding of the world is that there can be no understanding. You can cite people like Dawkins all you want; but when I was an atheist I read people like Russell who ultimately believed that life has no purpose whatsoever; and that the only understanding of the atheist is to accept the ultimate despair of the human condition. Things like good and evil are purely social constructs. The pinnacle of human success and the depths of human tragedy ultimately have not the slightest bit of meaning because all we are is a momentary blip of being; a great and cosmic accident. Is THAT the understanding of the world you would have me arrive at; because when stripped of all its 'new' evangelistic humanism; that is all that TRUE atheism is left with.

Which leads me to my final points. I AGREE with the things you said that are wrong "Pornography, heavy drugs, gambling, and sucking up nonrenewable resources like there is no tomorrow" but as an atheist and a naturalist; how can you say that any of these things are in fact wrong? Are you ACTUALLY making a truth claim here? If as many atheist philosophers have suggest, that all life boils down to is "authenticating myself" then how is "authenticating myself" in any of the above ways wrong? So what if I look at pornography while using heavy drugs? So what if I gamble away every penny? So what if I want to tear down trees so I can build a house and live there? You and I are just momentary blips of being; why care about ANY of it? Why not instead live life to the fullest? As a former atheist, I couldn't help but agree with Epicureanism and Hedonism. Those are actually sensible philosophical views from your perspective.

Finally I think it is ironic that you say the more humanistic a society becomes the more healthy it becomes. Aren't societies in the West now becoming increasingly secular? And yet, every one of those things you cite are on the rise precisely BECAUSE the society is more humanistic. The more humanistic a society becomes, the more relativistic it becomes; thus there is no standard for any kind of morality at all. It's purely subjective. Real or imagined, religion at least provides us with a sense of objective morality; even Nietzsche saw that.

How can you claim to be a humanist and an atheist? Stripped of all its current evangelistic zeal; according to atheist philosophy, humans are of no inherent worth as a grand cosmic accident; nor do their lives have any real, objective meaning. So for me, a true humanist would have to be a theist; because a theist says that every human life is of intrinsic value because we are all made in the image of God and that life does have purpose and meaning because it is not the product of random chance; but stems from a Creator who has fashioned us to be in relationship with Him. If the universe is blind and impersonal, then the person does not matter. You are utterly insignificant. If, however there is a Personal and causal force behind the universe, then the person does matter; because you have been fashioned after that same personal being.

Simply put; I don't care whether you're an atheist or not. But I think you've bought too deeply into the humanistic and evangelistic bent of the New Atheists who seek to return us to a more Modernist worldview. So while you say that philosophies like mine simply make religion more attractive; I would counter and say that these New Atheists and those like yourself are guilty of the same thing; a pathetic attempt to repackage and make the soul crushing hopelessness of the atheistic worldview appealing to a pop-culture audience who simply doesn't know any better....

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you and I 'dislike' each other (although that dislike probably exists more on your end than mine) but I actually appreciated the sincerity and bluntness of this post. I think you did a good job here of clarifying your position and why you are so hostile to religion; something I've been wanting to see from you for a long time. It's nice to hear what YOU have to say as opposed to the thoughts or links to someone else.

There are a few points I'd like to address; that naturally you will be 'disgusted' by; but I post not just for you but for other readers to draw their own conclusions.

First you say that stances like mine (and probably people like LibstaK as well) are what keeps religion on life support as people are waking up to the 'stench.' Davros, I disagree here because I believe there is an objective truth and an objective reality; but that 'truth' for man IS by in large subjective and therefore relativistic. What I mean by that is yes, in a humanistic sense we are evolving and that life is generally improving. But I ALSO believe that our understanding of religion is evolving. So in a sense, I think it is entirely possible to be both a humanist and a follower of religion. The goal of any individual or institution should be to realize their mistakes and grow from them. I think we have done that. Look at what Pope Francis is doing in the Holy Land right now, for example. We've come a long way from the crusades; because our understanding is evolving. Intrinsically we are flawed; I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with human nature; but this is not to say that we can't learn and grow from our mistakes. Religion isn't clinging to life support; it's evolving and changing because change is necessary. Everything IS change.

Second, you say my theology is a mind clamp that prevents us from understanding the world. I would charge the same thing of you; the naturalist and the atheist. From the naturalist perspective I would counter and say that if we live in the closed system in which you suggest; how can I trust my own logical faculties? How do I know that anything you say is even true; or that truth even exists in any objective sense? From the atheist perspective the ultimate understanding of the world is that there can be no understanding. You can cite people like Dawkins all you want; but when I was an atheist I read people like Russell who ultimately believed that life has no purpose whatsoever; and that the only understanding of the atheist is to accept the ultimate despair of the human condition. Things like good and evil are purely social constructs. The pinnacle of human success and the depths of human tragedy ultimately have not the slightest bit of meaning because all we are is a momentary blip of being; a great and cosmic accident. Is THAT the understanding of the world you would have me arrive at; because when stripped of all its 'new' evangelistic humanism; that is all that TRUE atheism is left with.

Which leads me to my final points. I AGREE with the things you said that are wrong "Pornography, heavy drugs, gambling, and sucking up nonrenewable resources like there is no tomorrow" but as an atheist and a naturalist; how can you say that any of these things are in fact wrong? Are you ACTUALLY making a truth claim here? If as many atheist philosophers have suggest, that all life boils down to is "authenticating myself" then how is "authenticating myself" in any of the above ways wrong? So what if I look at pornography while using heavy drugs? So what if I gamble away every penny? So what if I want to tear down trees so I can build a house and live there? You and I are just momentary blips of being; why care about ANY of it? Why not instead live life to the fullest? As a former atheist, I couldn't help but agree with Epicureanism and Hedonism. Those are actually sensible philosophical views from your perspective.

Finally I think it is ironic that you say the more humanistic a society becomes the more healthy it becomes. Aren't societies in the West now becoming increasingly secular? And yet, every one of those things you cite are on the rise precisely BECAUSE the society is more humanistic. The more humanistic a society becomes, the more relativistic it becomes; thus there is no standard for any kind of morality at all. It's purely subjective. Real or imagined, religion at least provides us with a sense of objective morality; even Nietzsche saw that.

How can you claim to be a humanist and an atheist? Stripped of all its current evangelistic zeal; according to atheist philosophy, humans are of no inherent worth as a grand cosmic accident; nor do their lives have any real, objective meaning. So for me, a true humanist would have to be a theist; because a theist says that every human life is of intrinsic value because we are all made in the image of God and that life does have purpose and meaning because it is not the product of random chance; but stems from a Creator who has fashioned us to be in relationship with Him. If the universe is blind and impersonal, then the person does not matter. You are utterly insignificant. If, however there is a Personal and causal force behind the universe, then the person does matter; because you have been fashioned after that same personal being.

Simply put; I don't care whether you're an atheist or not. But I think you've bought too deeply into the humanistic and evangelistic bent of the New Atheists who seek to return us to a more Modernist worldview. So while you say that philosophies like mine simply make religion more attractive; I would counter and say that these New Atheists and those like yourself are guilty of the same thing; a pathetic attempt to repackage and make the soul crushing hopelessness of the atheistic worldview appealing to a pop-culture audience who simply doesn't know any better....

First off you said to Frank that the Quran teaches it cleanses people with the fire only on a temp basis.That is true for Christians, and Jews, but nonbelievers are forever in the fire.The Quran is very specific about this.

I am not going line by line to your points that are for the forum readers anyway (I am doing the same, and I do not care about your cognitive dissonance points anyway.)

I see no evidence for a God.I see plenty of evidence that God is made up, and people telling lies to keep the belief going.Wanting to believe, avoiding knowledge that conflicts with the want, and only looking at the want is not a pathway to truth.

Science does not know everything. It has answers on who we are right now, and what we were.What we were effects us right now, and vital to understanding.

It does not matter if we are something more.We cannot prove we are something more.If we are something more?Then there is a serious reason we are not ALL made 

aware without any doubt of our other supposed reality of being something more.

So what if we are something more inside.So what if there is a God.It's obvious to me if both were true?We are not to be going around acting like we have Head injuries, and perpetuating past ignorance which fuels further divisions.

People that are afraid of death, and the myth of Hell should be shipped to Africa.They should be dropped right in the middle of the grasslands with hungry Lions.If they protest (which they all will), then show them a movie about Lucy instead (not the Ball.)

The "Hardened Hearts" is just mythical writing, and anyone not glued to confirmation bias can see this (nobody thinks a certain scene in Titanic is a Religious experience.)

Theism does not offer much of, and only filters reality.I would rather be uncomfortable with a truth than be reassured by a lie.I am free to think of possibilities that Theists cannot, and probably some Atheists will not think of.

I am more moral than the Abrahamic God in all three mythical incarnations.It's sad Theists think that a Godless society will devolve because of their warped concept of Sin.People,do not do the right things all the time, but to understand the science behind the why brings awareness to avoid the pitfalls.These pitfalls are inherent in all of us to varying ,degrees, and it has nothing to do with myths.

I have my own ideas on how Humanity should adjust for the better.My ideas are mute anyway because of the Roadblocks that are in the way.To put it simply, I feel we need to balance ourselves to what we are trampling over.Unchecked desires, and wants only spoils the mind.

We can do better for everyone, and everything on this planet.The people that do good without being concerned over unseen agencity, are the ones to make the difference.Turning minds into circular logic Pretzels is like a Band-Aid picked off the ground.

Edited by davros of skaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you think that the dust was the dry land?

Actually, I don't believe any of that. The first story in Genesis that even might have happened in reality was The Flood. Other than the fact that a humongous flood did happen, the Bible seems to have nearly all the details wrong. But that's to be expected with a story that old. If any more of it had been forgotten, we wouldn't even have the story.

But, as the writers of Genesis (Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.) recall more-recent events, their stories get better and by the time of "Moses" it's amazing how much they got right - even if OUR interpretation of the story isn't what it ought to be.

Anyway, I am withdrawing from this particular theological issue as the most-fundamental of all theological issues - god's very existence - has yet to be demonstrated. Until that gets done, the rest is so much dust in the breeze.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I go to hell so let it be.all the cool people are in hell.

I just found a small town in Oklahoma named: Hellville. Maybe you can book a flight.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then they aren't being very christian. According to the christian religion, christians are required to love all people no matter what they have done, no matter what they are a part of, and it isn't right to tell people they are going to hell. *hint hint the bible passage where Jesus tells people ready to stone an adulterer that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone* So, I wouldn't pay any attention to the nut-cases that think that God will send everyone who isn't a part of their church, to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol whenever people from those religious groups tell me I'm going to hell, I say, "Another case solved my dear Watson" or "Eh, take a number and get in line behind every other religion"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then they aren't being very christian. According to the christian religion, christians are required to love all people no matter what they have done, no matter what they are a part of, and it isn't right to tell people they are going to hell. *hint hint the bible passage where Jesus tells people ready to stone an adulterer that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone* So, I wouldn't pay any attention to the nut-cases that think that God will send everyone who isn't a part of their church, to hell.

The cast the first stone passage/narrative is absent from the earliest NT texts.It was inserted centuries later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol whenever people from those religious groups tell me I'm going to hell

Fear not when told of going to hell, but when told hell is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

I see what you are saying here, and yet I can't help but see so many problems with these statements.

First of all, by what criteria are you defining what is just or unjust? If the atheistic, naturalist worldview is correct than BOTH of those concepts are COMPLETELY arbitrary. There's no justifiable basis for this claim other than perhaps favoring one social construct over another.

I keep my posts relatively brief, so I will only respond to your first point. If you need responses to the others we can do it one at a time.

How does one measure what is just and what is not? I would say you are the one with an arbitrary standard if you say infinite punishment for finite offense is just. One of the central measures of justice is that the punishment fits the crime. Another more serious measure is that there actually be a crime -- what we do is largely determined by things out of our control -- and I think an omnibeneficient deity is going to know there is no real crime there, but humans responding to instincts and desires and conditions and background.

It so happens I not only don't believe the Western religions, but have a good deal of antipathy for them, largely because of the sort of thinking this represents. I think in spite of admonitions it makes Christians and others with similar teaching judgmental and in many cases capable of doing horrible things to carry out God's punishments and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Second, if we were to assume that there is an absolute right and wrong; what kind of justice do you prefer? By your own logic; should killers and rapists walk free? Shouldn't evil deeds merit some sort of punishment, some sort of justice? Therefore; why is it wrong to believe in a God who righteously judges? There are untold millions and millions of people who have been wronged in this life and justice was never done. The victims of all manner of evil cry out for justice; would you deny them that? I'm sorry but the above claims are so relativistic as to be nonsensical. Do you think someone like an Anne Frank or an Elie Wiesel would want to believe in a God of justice; a God of NO justice who rewards good and evil as being alike....or a naturalist system in which justice doesn't exist at all, because good and evil themselves don't really exist?

I think right and wrong exist as objective realities not as human constructs, but the best we can do is approach it logically rather than using social norms or how we personally feel about things.

Victims may be crying out for justice, and if they do so they do wrong. Desire for revenge and pleasure in getting it harms us tremendously. Forgiveness and compassion are what we should cry out for. The issue of karma has to come up here -- what we do has consequences we cannot escape -- this is seen all around us and I won't go into detail now except to say that this is enough. Things work themselves out in the end.

That doesn't mean I don't think society should protect itself, so long as what it does is humane and reasonable, but I don't think justice should be the objective but instead deterrence and keeping criminals out of circulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Fourth, I have seen you espouse a kind of Buddhism on other threads. How is the Christian system so different than the Buddhist system? Buddhist philosophy on attachment and becoming is quite similar to the Christian notion of sin; we exist in a state of perpetual Samsara and delusion because we cannot shake our attachments; which causes us suffering; and to suffer life after life after life. Both the Christian and the Buddhist would argue that there is something wrong with human nature and that it causes suffering; whether its in this life, in another realm, or in continued incarnations.

I have several times said I am a poor Buddhist, not competent to teach it, but I can clarify some of the misconceptions you seem to have here.

Attachment is seen as undesirable if one would be happy, since nothing is permanent and therefore we must of necessity suffer when we lose things we are attached to. It comes from one of the three fundamental causes of suffering, namely desire (which leads to attachment), revulsions and delusions. To attain bliss one must remove all these. I personally see that as something of a fantasy, but the advice to be aware of our desires and revulsions and delusions (to be mindful of why we do and think things) is I think sound.

The cycle of birth and death and rebirth (Samsara) comes from the natural concept that sentience is not destroyed when the body dies but desires to get back what it has lost. This makes good sense to me and seems more likely than heaven/hell (although many Buddhists of course have plenty of those too). What is wrong with us came in my opinion from the fact that we evolved through natural selection, and hence have these desires (aka instincts) that end up doing harm to our being and generating "bad karma." We do have control, but it takes hard work and study and meditation and who knows what else to exercise this control effectively, and when we fail it is not really our fault.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 9:39

New International Version

Love the verse ;) And I love' Ladyhawke! ' Nice pic. Demon guy isn't so bad either c:

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

satan-300x221.jpg54893.jpg

Sorry-off-topic :/ Edited by Kasha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear not when told of going to hell, but when told hell is coming.

Hell is already here, it's called the belief in god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davros,

Once again, I must say that I actually enjoyed reading your last post. Reading your opinions and arguments has proven to be much more interesting than the things you usually cite. It certainly proves you don't need to do that. You can argue these points yourself!

Naturally you will dismiss anything I say; it's obvious we won't convince one another :tu:

But for the spirit of debate and the enjoyment of our readers, I will be happy to continue the conversation.

First off you said to Frank that the Quran teaches it cleanses people with the fire only on a temp basis.That is true for Christians, and Jews, but nonbelievers are forever in the fire.The Quran is very specific about this.

Not necessarily. The Quran is very specific about what you or I would call 'infidels'; meaning those who are actively hostile to Islam; those who in the Prophet's time worked to subvert and destroy the faith. When it refers to unbelievers it is generally referring to those types of people; which sadly often INCLUDED Christians and Jews. It really doesn't say much if anything about someone who is JUST an atheist or agnostic. This is why many Islamic scholars like Nasr do suggest that even atheists and agnostics can be saved in the end....because eventually they will become aware of the truth of Allah; whether it is in this life or the next.

I personally find this view appealing; and as I said previously....it makes just as much sense as any other theological view on the subject.

I see no evidence for a God.I see plenty of evidence that God is made up, and people telling lies to keep the belief going.Wanting to believe, avoiding knowledge that conflicts with the want, and only looking at the want is not a pathway to truth.

Science does not know everything. It has answers on who we are right now, and what we were.What we were effects us right now, and vital to understanding.

Your point is well taken here. As I noted some months back, even if you do not respect my opinion, I actually respect yours. I can see where you are coming from; I REALLY WAS an atheist once. Being and Nothingness was my favorite book; just to give you an example.

I understand that you see no evidence for God. Fair enough. But of course I can simply come back and say I see no evidence for the absence of a God, either. I've seen no evidence to firmly keep me in an atheistic worldview.

And of course, this boils down to subjective interpretation. You can look at the world as it is and see no evidence for a god; just as I can look at the world as it is and see evidence FOR a god.

To your final point on the above quote, I have no problem with science, Davros. I actually AGREE with you there.

It does not matter if we are something more.We cannot prove we are something more.If we are something more?Then there is a serious reason we are not ALL made 

aware without any doubt of our other supposed reality of being something more.

So what if we are something more inside.So what if there is a God.It's obvious to me if both were true?We are not to be going around acting like we have Head injuries, and perpetuating past ignorance which fuels further divisions.

Unfortunately I think there was a problem with something you were trying to quote or there was something wrong with the way this posted. Because of it I couldn't quite grasp the point you were trying to get at here; but I think I can get a bit of it by inference.

If I understand your argument correctly here, I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think we do have to move away from past ignorance because things like religious conflicts HAVE caused a lot of the problems in this world. But this doesn't mean that they should just disappear. It means that they need to evolve, be reformed; and that we need to come to a better understanding of one another.

This is ESPECIALLY true if God DOES exist and we ARE something more inside. It means that everything we do with every precious moment we have in this life MATTERS. Who you are, who I am, what you do, what I do...all of this MATTERS. We move from Russellian insignificance to significance.

Theism does not offer much of, and only filters reality.I would rather be uncomfortable with a truth than be reassured by a lie.I am free to think of possibilities that Theists cannot, and probably some Atheists will not think of.

I don't see theism as a filter at all. It's a worldview; it's a way to explain the WHY not necessarily the HOW. Every philosophical system in the world, including naturalism, could thus equally be described as a "filter". Atheism is a filter.

Science only shows us what is, and this, only what we have come to understand thus far, as you yourself said. So philosophically, we HAVE to interpret what we see with SOME SORT of filter You and I just happen to have competing worldviews; your self as a non-theist and myself as a theist.

I am more moral than the Abrahamic God in all three mythical incarnations.It's sad Theists think that a Godless society will devolve because of their warped concept of Sin.People,do not do the right things all the time, but to understand the science behind the why brings awareness to avoid the pitfalls.These pitfalls are inherent in all of us to varying ,degrees, and it has nothing to do with myths.

​I don't know that I would say "science"; maybe "psychology"....but nevertheless while this kind of humanism may sound appealing at a glance; I think you as a realist would certainly know how close this is to a form of naturalistic Utopianism. This is my main point of contention with the 'new' atheists. If I were to return to my atheistic worldview, I would just say that this is nonsense. Many of the classical atheist philosophers would agree with me. We're not going to avoid the pitfalls because life is basically chaos anyway. I just don't agree with this rosy version of atheism. I see it as another form of escapism. I prefer the classical Epicurean form of atheism; quietly making the best out of a bad situation and finding a shadow of personal meaning when no greater meaning exists.

I have my own ideas on how Humanity should adjust for the better.My ideas are mute anyway because of the Roadblocks that are in the way.To put it simply, I feel we need to balance ourselves to what we are trampling over.Unchecked desires, and wants only spoils the mind.

We can do better for everyone, and everything on this planet.The people that do good without being concerned over unseen agencity, are the ones to make the difference.Turning minds into circular logic Pretzels is like a Band-Aid picked off the ground.

See, again this is a form of humanistic Utopianism, Now I think it's good that you want to make a difference. I applaud you for actually wanting to do that. You should never mute your ideas; speak them to anyone who will listen. Write them down. The only roadblocks in this life are the ones that we won't make the attempt to climb over....

The thing is, I offer these words of encouragement AS A THEIST. Davros, I think you CAN make a difference and I think it's a noble effort that you try...even if your view is radically different than mine and you use your gifts to write a book on why you're an atheist :P

I would still encourage you to do it because your opinion matters...and you matter.

But honestly man, I'm just being honest...when I was an atheist I would have read such idealism and laughed. I would have agreed with your statements about not needing myth and unseen agents wholeheartedly; but I wouldn't have cared at all about "doing better for the world" because ultimately to me; none of that mattered. Under my old belief system, I would have said it is just as worthy and valid to do nothing as it is to do something. Epicurus was a hero of mine; I was content in my own insignificance. I just wanted to do things that made me happy: writing, playing video games, reading, hanging out with friends, going to parties, getting girls: I didn't care anything about the greater problems of the world because I figured...hell....what does it matter? We're all dying anyway! The problems of the people in this world are largely immaterial because every one of us will be in the ground sooner than later anyway. This is not some sort of exaggeration for effect, I assure you. This is truly how I thought.

I just can't get past the part that as an atheist, I thought that nothing really mattered. And I most certainly was not the only atheist who felt this way. So if you were to say this to the former atheist me....I would have said ALL OF IT is like picking up a band-aid off the ground.

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus Aeralius and Davros of Skaro, thank you for an amazing debate. I think I learn more on these forums than I did in class :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

I apologize that my posts are longer. I'm a writer and so I tend to be long-winded; especially when I'm trying to make arguments or prove a point. I will try to be as brief as possible in my discussions with you if that helps.

I would say you are the one with an arbitrary standard if you say infinite punishment for finite offense is just.

If that were true, I would be inclined to agree with you. But as I have stated over and over again on not just this thread, but countless other ones...I don't think theists have any substantive theological evidence to believe that this is even the case. The Bible, for example talks about a 'second death'; a final cessation of existence. That sounds to me like the same end as the naturalist worldview.

Not to mention the possibility of 'second chances.' Purgatory. What I said about Islam. Even transmigration and reincarnation can't be completely ruled out; though that is not an orthodox part of the system that I follow. We just don't know, and I don't think that's a bad answer.

It so happens I not only don't believe the Western religions, but have a good deal of antipathy for them, largely because of the sort of thinking this represents. I think in spite of admonitions it makes Christians and others with similar teaching judgmental and in many cases capable of doing horrible things to carry out God's punishments and so on.

I agree with you here. This IS awful. It sickens me to the depths of my soul and it's one of the reasons why I'm active in the interfaith community. I have friends that are Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. As I said to Davros, I think this shows not the fault of the religion per se; but the fault of our own interpretation OF religion. It is our egoistic desire to be right, our egoistic desire to be AS gods that create these problems. I think we need to work towards better understanding of people of faiths; not eradication of them.

Victims may be crying out for justice, and if they do so they do wrong. Desire for revenge and pleasure in getting it harms us tremendously. Forgiveness and compassion are what we should cry out for. The issue of karma has to come up here -- what we do has consequences we cannot escape -- this is seen all around us and I won't go into detail now except to say that this is enough. Things work themselves out in the end.

Oddly enough, once again I agree with you. But isn't it religion that gives us a greater capacity to do this? "21Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." (Matthew 18:21-22)

Both Jesus and the Buddha knew that in harming others we are harming ourselves. Religion, I think provides a solid framework for both healing and forgiveness.

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is accurate for theists to believe in a God of mercy AND justice. Not either/or.

The cycle of birth and death and rebirth (Samsara) comes from the natural concept that sentience is not destroyed when the body dies but desires to get back what it has lost. This makes good sense to me and seems more likely than heaven/hell (although many Buddhists of course have plenty of those too). What is wrong with us came in my opinion from the fact that we evolved through natural selection, and hence have these desires (aka instincts) that end up doing harm to our being and generating "bad karma." We do have control, but it takes hard work and study and meditation and who knows what else to exercise this control effectively, and when we fail it is not really our fault.

Believe me, I know a lot about Buddhism. I think I've studied it more than any other religion. It resonates with me. I've read innumerable Buddhist scriptures; I've traveled to places of Buddhist pilgrimage like Borobudur and Lantau Island (the Po Lin Monastery). I see you're in Vietnam. One of my major goals is to travel to Angkor Wat. I've had Buddhists tell me I know more about Buddhism than they do. I'm not saying any of this to brag; but to show my respect and veneration for the tradition.

And I also state it to say that I pretty much agree with everything you said there. It sounds to me like you know a lot more about Buddhism than you give yourself credit for.

The thing is: whether you see it or not, Christianity and Buddhism DO have a lot in common. What you are talking about here is the battle against the ego and the false-self....Christianity agrees with Buddhism on that point; this is why the Bible says things like "take up your cross daily and follow me" or "I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me". Both of our respective traditions teach that we must die to this false self. This is part of the reason why such a powerful friendship was forged by Buddhists of various traditions like HH the Dalai Lama and D.T. Suzuki with the Catholic monk Thomas Merton (who is my 'hero' incidentally)....because they realized they were essentially striving for the same things, but in different ways. Yes, we may differ perhaps on our cosmological ends (like what you said in the first sentence) but this is precisely my point from the onset....that people of various faiths should seek to understand each other and work together based on what they have in common rather than focusing on what separates them; because it is THIS that has caused all the religious strife throughout our history. Instead of fighting, we could be learning from one another.

God help us to see how much we have in common with one another...............

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davros,

Naturally you will dismiss anything I say; it's obvious we won't convince one another.

Just stop putting on a show of words, and provide evidence.

Not necessarily. The Quran is very specific about what you or I would call 'infidels'; meaning those who are actively hostile to Islam; those who in the Prophet's time worked to subvert and destroy the faith. When it refers to unbelievers it is generally referring to those types of people; which sadly often INCLUDED Christians and Jews. It really doesn't say much if anything about someone who is JUST an atheist or agnostic. This is why many Islamic scholars like Nasr do suggest that even atheists and agnostics can be saved in the end....because eventually they will become aware of the truth of Allah; whether it is in this life or the next.

I personally find this view appealing; and as I said previously....it makes just as much sense as any other theological view on the subject.

You and Nasr do not fool me.

http://quran.com/2/6-7

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.

http://quran.com/3/157

And if you are killed in the cause of Allah or die - then forgiveness from Allah and mercy are better than whatever they accumulate [in this world].

http://quran.com/4/89

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

http://quran.com/7/44

And the companions of Paradise will call out to the companions of the Fire, "We have already found what our Lord promised us to be true. Have you found what your Lord promised to be true?" They will say, "Yes." Then an announcer will announce among them, "The curse of Allah shall be upon the wrongdoers."

http://quran.com/7/50

And the companions of the Fire will call to the companions of Paradise, "Pour upon us some water or from whatever Allah has provided you." They will say, "Indeed, Allah has forbidden them both to the disbelievers."

http://quran.com/14/47-52

[it will be] on the Day the earth will be replaced by another earth, and the heavens [as well], and all creatures will come out before Allah , the One, the Prevailing.

And you will see the criminals that Day bound together in shackles,

Their garments of liquid pitch and their faces covered by the Fire.

I understand that you see no evidence for God. Fair enough. But of course I can simply come back and say I see no evidence for the absence of a God, either. I've seen no evidence to firmly keep me in an atheistic worldview.

And of course, this boils down to subjective interpretation. You can look at the world as it is and see no evidence for a god; just as I can look at the world as it is and see evidence FOR a god.

To your final point on the above quote, I have no problem with science, Davros. I actually AGREE with you there.

So the World's existence is evidence for a God to you?

I love Science, and I think of far out things.For example maybe the Universe was created by something beyond our understanding that died?

Unfortunately I think there was a problem with something you were trying to quote or there was something wrong with the way this posted. Because of it I couldn't quite grasp the point you were trying to get at here; but I think I can get a bit of it by inference.

If I understand your argument correctly here, I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think we do have to move away from past ignorance because things like religious conflicts HAVE caused a lot of the problems in this world. But this doesn't mean that they should just disappear. It means that they need to evolve, be reformed; and that we need to come to a better understanding of one another.

This is ESPECIALLY true if God DOES exist and we ARE something more inside. It means that everything we do with every precious moment we have in this life MATTERS. Who you are, who I am, what you do, what I do...all of this MATTERS. We move from Russellian insignificance to significance.

The Religions of extended adolescence fairy tales designed to enslave minds has got to go.It's false and filled to the brim with Brain rotting verses that people take as real.

1 John 2:15-17

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Your mythical God is the biggest Jack*** in literary history.

If there is a God? It has not made it's presence known.Just because people think they feel God does not make it true.People have a habit of fooling themselves with many examples like toxic relationships being one.

A true God that wanted to guide Mankind can do it with one page, and not a big heaping mess of  contradicting superstitious barberism.

I do not see super intelligence needing vanity filled worship.That to me is an ignorant Human trait.I would never want to be worshipped no matter what ever great thing I may have done.

Religion is far too ignorant to be the work of anything but Man it's self.

To me Mankind has to stop the worship, and that includes material things not just a false God.

I can see how proud a true God would be if it's children on their own got things in order instead chasing their tales which they no longer have.

I don't see theism as a filter at all. It's a worldview; it's a way to explain the WHY not necessarily the HOW. Every philosophical system in the world, including naturalism, could thus equally be described as a "filter". Atheism is a filter.

I can see the requirement for evidence acts as a filter.

If I walked onto a used Car lot, and I saw a sign that said "Only a fool looks under the Hood, or requests a VIN background check."They would filter me out as a customer.

Science only shows us what is, and this, only what we have come to understand thus far, as you yourself said. So philosophically, we HAVE to interpret what we see with SOME SORT of filter You and I just happen to have competing worldviews; your self as a non-theist and myself as a theist.

I see you as falling for the oldest trick in the Book.

You see me as not opening my Heart to God.

I read the Bible, and I have far more understanding with Science than the aforementioned.

I don't know that I would say "science"; maybe "psychology"....but nevertheless while this kind of humanism may sound appealing at a glance; I think you as a realist would certainly know how close this is to a form of naturalistic Utopianism. This is my main point of contention with the 'new' atheists. If I were to return to my atheistic worldview, I would just say that this is nonsense. Many of the classical atheist philosophers would agree with me. We're not going to avoid the pitfalls because life is basically chaos anyway. I just don't agree with this rosy version of atheism. I see it as another form of escapism. I prefer the classical Epicurean form of atheism; quietly making the best out of a bad situation and finding a shadow of personal meaning when no greater meaning exists.

I do not care about philosophies, or new Atheism, or Atheism plus.I just want everybody educated which goes a long way in stopping the spread of infection of bad beliefs.

I want to see the return of the Village, but a technologicaly self sustained one.My idea is more intricate than my brief summery.It's about balance, curbing runaway desires, and the only people put on anything like a pedastool are the people in the Science fields.

But honestly man, I'm just being honest...when I was an atheist I would have read such idealism and laughed. I would have agreed with your statements about not needing myth and unseen agents wholeheartedly; but I wouldn't have cared at all about "doing better for the world" because ultimately to me; none of that mattered. Under my old belief system, I would have said it is just as worthy and valid to do nothing as it is to do something. Epicurus was a hero of mine; I was content in my own insignificance. I just wanted to do things that made me happy: writing, playing video games, reading, hanging out with friends, going to parties, getting girls: I didn't care anything about the greater problems of the world because I figured...hell....what does it matter? We're all dying anyway! The problems of the people in this world are largely immaterial because every one of us will be in the ground sooner than later anyway. This is not some sort of exaggeration for effect, I assure you. This is truly how I thought.

I just can't get past the part that as an atheist, I thought that nothing really mattered. And I most certainly was not the only atheist who felt this way. So if you were to say this to the former atheist me....I would have said ALL OF IT is like picking up a band-aid off the ground.

Your exAtheist self sounds like a stereotype to me.

I did not know what an Atheist was, or who Richard Dawkins is untill I saw a South Park episode.Not untill several years later did I start researching the Bible (which I rejected at age 10), and Atheism.I was like "Oh that is what the Atomic symbol on military graves mean", then I was "What? That's the evidence for Jesus?".

The real reason I started the research, is because I wondered why Theists I interacted in real life acted like they had a chunk of their Brain missing.

I now know why, and it's a commandment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past week or two I have been on a couple of forums where the majority of the posters are extreme and unpleasant 'born agains'. They believe only they have the 'truth' and everyone else, including Christians believing in other doctrines, are destined for the fires of hell! They didn't take to their position being challenged, although I did it politely. I was given the heave ho, when I suggested that if Jesus was alive today they might have been the sort of people he had in mind when he came up with the quote, assuming he did, "Depart from me for I never knew you!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past week or two I have been on a couple of forums where the majority of the posters are extreme and unpleasant 'born agains'. They believe only they have the 'truth' and everyone else, including Christians believing in other doctrines, are destined for the fires of hell! They didn't take to their position being challenged, although I did it politely. I was given the heave ho, when I suggested that if Jesus was alive today they might have been the sort of people he had in mind when he came up with the quote, assuming he did, "Depart from me for I never knew you!"

If I was a multimillionaire? I would produce a documentary film that would literaly make their heads explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a multimillionaire? I would produce a documentary film that would literaly make their heads explode.

Have you thought of crowd-sourcing?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.