Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shade-o]

True, teaching for a happier afterlife is not the same as instilling fear in a bad one. But by necessity there must be a 'bad' option, otherwise the 'good' one is available to everybody regardless of their beliefs or actions, rendering the religion pointless. Whether it is eternal ironic punishment or simply ceasing to exist after death, there has to be some downside to not being righteous. And advertising the golden fields and rivers goes hand in hand with warning about the place with pointy rocks and no chairs.

Sure glad I copied this as soon as I saw that the site was down

[Shades]

Hmm maybe I'm not explaining it well.
Teaching about what the bad things are too I could understand, you wouldn't be living with fear of them you know what to do to avoid it. But this is not the case with a lot of ways indoctrination is done.

I also have issues with the teaching that questioning is wrong because it's 'against' belief, that just seems a waste of potential and doesn't gel well, besides surely questioning a belief and deciding it's right is better than just accepting it.

[Shade-o]

Well, I suppose that allowing the belief to be questioned could lead to dissent and alternate interpretations, or even rejection entirely. And given that the belief exists to please the deity and help people get to a good afterlife, allowing questioning leads to God getting Angry and people going to Bad Afterlife.

[Shades]

But then that just leads to the why we have the ability to question, if there is a god that created us that is.

I can only really see two reasons, one because the god wanted us to be able to, in which case not doing so is surely a failure to achieve all that we were made capable of and so should be seen as an insult to god. The other being that it's a test, but it seems very sadistic to create something that is naturally inquisitive and demand it doesn't.

As an aside if god did create an initial blueprint then he/she is clearly an incompetent engineer too and could do with some kind of quality control department vetting her/his work.

[Shade-o]

Well, I can't possibly hope to answer that.

Good thing I'm an atheist!

[Virex]

I can only really see two reasons, one because the god wanted us to be able to, in which case not doing so is surely a failure to achieve all that we were made capable of and so should be seen as an insult to god. The other being that it's a test, but it seems very sadistic to create something that is naturally inquisitive and demand it doesn't.

The last point isn't really a problem now is it? There have been cults that believed the devil made all there is in the corporal world and that faith was the only way to escape this suffering. Unsurprisingly, the pope wasn't amused by the idea that he was made by the devil. Cue crusades to south France...

[Andir]

I can only really see two reasons, one because the god wanted us to be able to, in which case not doing so is surely a failure to achieve all that we were made capable of and so should be seen as an insult to god. The other being that it's a test, but it seems very sadistic to create something that is naturally inquisitive and demand it doesn't.

The last point isn't really a problem now is it? There have been cults that believed the devil made all there is in the corporal world and that faith was the only way to escape this suffering. Unsurprisingly, the pope wasn't amused by the idea that he was made by the devil. Cue crusades to south France...

Not sure why this stuck out to me, but did you mean corporal or corporeal? 

[Leafsnail]

What if God is subject to the Butterfly Effect (yes, the movie)?

Every time he interacts with the world by helping it, he just fucks it up more for the future?
I'd sit on my cloud and mope about my creation all day. Finally you have the ultimate God-Game, and then the only winning move is not to play.

That isn't God, that's just "A guy on a cloud who fucks everything up a lot".  I mean, there's a limit to how much you can twist the definition of something.

Oh, and FYI for all atheists, just as gay has replaced homosexual as a word, you're now all bright.

Gay hasn't replaced homosexual, and bright hasn't replaced atheist.

While we're on the topic of atheism (HAHA), does anybody else think that Richard Dawkins is kind of a jerk? I'm not sure what is it, but something about that man rubs me the wrong way.

Not really, no.  He certainly thinks it's illogical to believe in a God, but all he's done is wrote a book about it and made statements in public.  He's also one of the most influential and important biologists around today.

Whether or not it's the same, extremists are the same the world over and they just give every and any denomination a bad name if it's not common knowledge what the denomination's actually about.

Before you continue, think - you just took a very extreme position.  What about the so called human rights "extremists" in China?

Most people follow the religion of their family and immediate community, since it's simply what they grew up with and were exposed to by their parents, friends, teachers, and priests/whatevers. Unless they have unusual circumstances or are exceptionally evaluative of themselves, they won't ever change. It's basically passive, benevolent indoctrination by imprinting on them the values and mores that define a culture. Like learning to read and write to get a job, you should learn to love and fear X to have a good afterlife.

It depends - you can have demographic shifts.  For instance, the UK seems to be getting less and less religious as young people begin to lose touch with it.

Well, if you fear and obey X, you won't go to the bad afterlife. Saving an innocent from eternal pain/annoyance/ironic punishment is pretty benevolent.

I'm gonna push you off a cliff unless you're my slave forever.

Hey, I just saved you from being pushed off a cliff!  Wow, I'm so benevolent!

Well, I suppose that allowing the belief to be questioned could lead to dissent and alternate interpretations, or even rejection entirely. And given that the belief exists to please the deity and help people get to a good afterlife, allowing questioning leads to God getting Angry and people going to Bad Afterlife.

I see it more as a kindof memetic evolution thing.  Religions that encourage lack of questioning survive because... well, people don't question them, and they get passed down more.  Another critical factor to the Abrahamic religion's success could be the "exclusivity" clause - you can't worship any other Gods, stopping the religion from changing or being forgotten.

[Andir]

Well, if you fear and obey X, you won't go to the bad afterlife. Saving an innocent from eternal pain/annoyance/ironic punishment is pretty benevolent.

I'm gonna push you off a cliff unless you're my slave forever.

Hey, I just saved you from being pushed off a cliff!  Wow, I'm so benevolent!

Dear almighty and benevolent Leafsnail,

Please bring world peace.  You are the most powerful of a beings as you keep me from being pushed off a cliff by you.  Will you help the little children of the world break away from their parents and adopt your sermons.  Also, could I win the lottery just this once?

Thank you.

[Frajic]

If God had wanted me to believe, he'd give me a reason to believe. However, I was born in a non-Christian family with the brains to question blind faith. If he'd give me even a tiny piece of evidence he exists, that would be reaaaaally helpful.

Hey, God, I'm down here! Shout back if you want me to believe!
But please do so before I die and get sent to Hell!

[Jackrabbit]

Whether or not it's the same, extremists are the same the world over and they just give every and any denomination a bad name if it's not common knowledge what the denomination's actually about.

Before you continue, think - you just took a very extreme position.  What about the so called human rights "extremists" in China?

That is true, I generalized and I'm sorry. But I think you know what I meant - I mean fundies, I mean terrorists, I mean the Black Panther and I mean the 'all men need to die' Feminists. People like that. There aren't many but I'll be damned if they don't skew the image of whatever group the associate themselves with, badly.   

[KaguroDraven]

That is true, I generalized and I'm sorry. But I think you know what I meant - I mean fundies, I mean terrorists, I mean the Black Panther and I mean the 'all men need to die' Feminists. People like that. There aren't many but I'll be damned if they don't skew the image of whatever group the associate themselves with, badly.

'all men need to die' Feminists are idiots anyway, if all men are dead how will new humans come into existance?

[Siquo]

That isn't God, that's just "A guy on a cloud who fucks everything up a lot".  I mean, there's a limit to how much you can twist the definition of something.

It's
"A supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force"
Versus your
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
Both are definitions (amongst more). The boy I just imagined is also the creator of the universe, so should fall within the definition. There's a limit to how far you can twist "being rational", you're losing it.

Gay hasn't replaced homosexual, and bright hasn't replaced atheist.

You did not rtfa, did you? And if you did, go bug the author.

Not really, no.  He certainly thinks it's illogical to believe in a God, but all he's done is wrote a book about it and made statements in public.  He's also one of the most influential and important biologists around today.

Strange arguments... That does not mean he was not a jerk. On the other hand, he was a good friend of Douglas Adams, so he must have some redeeming quality

Not sure why this stuck out to me, but did you mean corporal or corporeal? 

Both can mean the same. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporal

That is true, I generalized and I'm sorry. But I think you know what I meant - I mean fundies, I mean terrorists, I mean the Black Panther and I mean the 'all men need to die' Feminists. People like that. There aren't many but I'll be damned if they don't skew the image of whatever group the associate themselves with, badly.   

But is that their fault, or the fault of the person whose view is skewed? If one can't be bothered to look beyond their prejudice, I don't think stopping all extremists will actually work in bettering the image of the group, in the eyes of someone who apparently doesn't care anyway.

[Jackrabbit]

Well, it's a little bit of both, you need to do some research into a group before you can honestly make any opinions about it. I mean, hell, if the majority of stories you heard about America involved rednecks being bigoted and racist, you might think the American people are bigoted and racist but you wouldn't be right. Lack of information is the issue here, I think.

[KaguroDraven]

Well, it's a little bit of both, you need to do some research into a group before you can honestly make any opinions about it. I mean, hell, if the majority of stories you heard about America involved rednecks being bigoted and racist, you might think the American people are bigoted and racist but you wouldn't be right. Lack of information is the issue here, I think.

Actuilly alot of us are, atleast where I live, I'm surrounded by the closed minded idiots.