Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Thoughts on Hell started by Richardthughes
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 23 2011,12:47
Kevin, if you'd like to frame the discussion, feel free.
I'm not sure if you need disclosure of people's faiths as part of the posts?
Bible seach for "hell"
< http://www.biblegateway.com/quickse....ion=NIV >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 23 2011,13:25
< > Iain's latest is all about digital hell. A cracking read.
Read his book!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 23 2011,13:40
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 23 2011,13:25) | < > Iain's latest is all about digital hell. A cracking read.
Read his book! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surface Detail definitely a much more powerful idea of a hell than the rather lame Judeo-Christian version.
On the other hand, the ending left me going WTF?
But back to hell... ("Back into Hell" anyone?)
What's the point? The New Testament lays down the general principles of good government, but contains no code of laws for the punishment of offenders. Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong, and that this distinction must be maintained for its own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals, nor for the purpose of deterring others from sin. These results may be gained, but crime in itself demands punishment.
If there is an enternal distinction between right and wrong, then what is right and what is wrong?
If we go by the Bible definition, then beating your slaves almost to death is perfectly OK. Yet, no modern, moral person believes it is OK to beat ones slaves (or indeed own slaves).
So are we more moral than the Bible? How can the Bible claim an eternal morality (distinction between right and wrong) if that morality changes based on the culture and the time?
Can anyone meet the requirements of both the Bible and modern society? What about all the other religions? What about purgatory (invented so that Christians could still force people to believe in God to go to heaven, but didn't have to send babies to hell)?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 23 2011,13:46
I also liked Surface detail!
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 23 2011,14:43
Hell is in the earth, no? That reveals a particular attitude toward the earth, does it not?
Doesn't it also allude to a sense of shame at our origins, our bodies, our sexuality? And thus global climate change, evolution, and death?
Vine Deloria, Jr., himself not an atheist, said that of all the religions, the Christian Heaven seemed to be the most pleasant, but the majority of its believers also seemed to have the greatest fear of death, largely because of this fear of hell.
It has not made people more moral, this fear, but it has given people a new weapon with which to demonize their enemies. Say what you want about Richard Dawkins or PZ or me, but none of us believes that there is a hell waiting for anyone that we do not like.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 23 2011,15:05
Hell is simply a tool invented by those in power to keep their subjects in line.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 23 2011,15:10
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 23 2011,14:43) | Hell is in the earth, no? That reveals a particular attitude toward the earth, does it not?
Doesn't it also allude to a sense of shame at our origins, our bodies, our sexuality? And thus global climate change, evolution, and death?
Vine Deloria, Jr., himself not an atheist, said that of all the religions, the Christian Heaven seemed to be the most pleasant, but the majority of its believers also seemed to have the greatest fear of death, largely because of this fear of hell.
It has not made people more moral, this fear, but it has given people a new weapon with which to demonize their enemies. Say what you want about Richard Dawkins or PZ or me, but none of us believes that there is a hell waiting for anyone that we do not like. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Christian heaven seems like hell to me. Singing and praising god forever... yech. It'd definitely be hell for those standing next to me in the chorus line.*
*I can barely carry a tune on my iPod.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 23 2011,15:50
Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 23 2011,18:15
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor to anyone with a lick of sense. So Kevin, your "movie" could be the shortest on record.
And BTW, it's too damn bad taht you're afraid to interview Louis. The potential acadamy award-winning scene where he eviscerates you and makes you cry will sadly, never get made.
However, I do believe that Mr. DeMille is ready to get that close-up of you. Fix your mascara!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 23 2011,18:35
Could we stop calling this clown 'Kevin'? Please?
I further note he hasn't bothered to come here and answer any of these issues.
Here's another couple of questions...
All you have to go on for any definition of hell is what? A book written by people who had never been there.
In fact, if you are one of the IDiots that think that God is lying to us (by creating the universe with a semblance of age), then how can we trust his 'revelations' about hell?
Of course, you might have anecdotal 'evidence'. In that case, let's find a human being who has never heard of Christianity, never been preached to by any modern religion, or had any other influence (no TV, movies, radio, books, etc). Now, let's kill him < (should be easy for religious types... we'll just tell them he's gay.) >
Then we'll revive him and see what version of 'hell' or anything else he describes.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 23 2011,18:41
J-Dog,
I'm not sure a scene where Kev's producer/money people scream "He wants how much? There's no way we're paying that total non-entity that sort of cash!" which swiftly cuts to me saying "Hell doesn't exist. It's an absurd, cruel fiction no matter how many people vaguely believe in it. Find me some evidence and I'll listen.....Didn't think so. Now off you fuck so I can do some real work." is Academy Award material. Sadly.
Mind you, turning up in the Borat style man thong would be comedy gold...
Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 23 2011,18:45
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 24 2011,00:35) | Could we stop calling this clown 'Kevin'? Please?
[SNIP] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough. I vote for "Lying shitebag who greasily shills for the terminally bible blinded". The only problem is that it doesn't have a catchy acronym and fails to communicate his eminent punchability.*
Too harsh?
Louis
*Edited to add: It should be obvious I don't mean this literally. Don't know Kev, don't want to punch him. Hyperbole is fun though. Not a fan of liars though, I doubt Kevvo has the cojones to present the targets of his misrepresentations with his nonsense.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 23 2011,20:01
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 23 2011,18:45) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 24 2011,00:35) | Could we stop calling this clown 'Kevin'? Please?
[SNIP] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough. I vote for "Lying shitebag who greasily shills for the terminally bible blinded". The only problem is that it doesn't have a catchy acronym and fails to communicate his eminent punchability.
Too harsh?
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Too harsh? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, not at all.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 23 2011,20:39
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 23 2011,16:50) | Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion.
Posted by: Seversky on Mar. 23 2011,21:04
Kevin...
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 23 2011,21:31
Hell would be spending eternity listening to Gil Dodgen.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 23 2011,21:44
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 23 2011,21:31) | Hell would be spending eternity listening to Gil Dodgen. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's a new thread... examples of hell.
How about watching BA77 elaborate at length while wearing a Lady Gaga outfit?
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 23 2011,22:28
Maybe Kevin should interview < Matt Groening >. I've always enjoyed his views on the subject.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 24 2011,00:31
Thanks for setting this up, Richard. Framing questions to come.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2011,06:47
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,06:31) | Thanks for setting this up, Richard. Framing questions to come. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only question you need to focus on, my lad, is "Bearing false witness: will it send me to the very hell I so fervently love to claim others are condemned to?".
Seriously, why the hell* do you expect to make a propaganda movie which in which you selectively and dishonestly (admittedly so it appears) edit the comments of others to fit into a prearranged story derived from your own prejudices, slander generations of scientists, misrepresent the work and lives of individuals and multitudes, and then not expect to come in for criticism varying from the excoriating to the abusive? Why do you expect anyone aware of your shenanigans, here or elsewhere, to trust you at your (already thoroughly discredited) word?
Dr Louis' advice: stop focussing on the made up sins of others, old boy, start focussing on your own very real ones. Or so you think by piously instigating little cinematic pogroms of dishonesty your fictional deity will somehow love you? Is any sin forgiveable as long as you do it for the baby Jesus? Remember, movie-shill-boy, it's not *MY* standards you have to live up to, it's the ones you claim to believe in.
Now run along and bother someone else with your asinine irrelevances.
Louis
*Haha, see what I did there? I kill me sometimes.**
**In joke...forget about it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2011,06:50
next thread, "Thoughts on whether Shiva has 10 sets of fingernail clippers"
why the hell would anyone want to go see another jimmy o'keefe style driveby con job *about* a con job?
oh right that's because kevin is a cynic and plies his wares to the average Amurrikan
well lemme tell you something kev I live right in the middle of all the average Amurrikans and they don't give a shit about your movies. Sternberg who, your lies don't even get fixed in medium range memory.
the best i can figure, the same outfit that prints your garbage must also own stock in some DVD pressing factories and mails to a short list of preferred church youth group pastors who like to show this sort of crap on wednesday nights to pimply faced teenagers who are only there for the pizza and a chance to grope something.
that you troll this board like a remora is, well, about what i'd expect from you.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 24 2011,08:42
So. From the responses here, it looks like this board is about evenly divided, with the two positions outlined below:
1.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be ignored.
2.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be poked with a stick for LOLs.
I vote for Kevin as #2.
Kevin - Over to you!
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 24 2011,09:24
Quote (khan @ Mar. 23 2011,19:39) | Quote (Robin @ Mar. 23 2011,16:50) | Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.
However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).
It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.
They are OTPaulians, not Christians.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 24 2011,09:25
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 24 2011,08:42) | So. From the responses here, it looks like this board is about evenly divided, with the two positions outlined below:
1.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be ignored.
2.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be poked with a stick for LOLs.
I vote for Kevin as #2.
Kevin - Over to you! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree... I think we've asked some serious questions about hell... and had some fun.
Kevin, will you discuss this in an adult manner? (i.e. sharing of ideas, not preaching; answering questions, not just asking them; actually considering others thoughts, instead of ignoring ones you don't agree with)
So far, it doesn't look too good.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 24 2011,10:15
Kristine, Robin, thanks for your feedback. Especially this:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It has not made people more moral, this fear, but it has given people a new weapon with which to demonize their enemies. Say what you want about Richard Dawkins or PZ or me, but none of us believes that there is a hell waiting for anyone that we do not like. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is one of the key areas I want to get into, the psychological function of hell as a way of enforcing boundaries/simplifying the world. Question is, can someone recommend someone a good authority on the psychology of religion?
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 24 2011,10:17
OgreMkV: I find it laughable that you would quote J-Dog and then ask if I'm going to discuss this subject in an adult manner. Clearly discussing things in an adult manner isn't a requirement to be part of this group. But to answer your question simply, yes. I don't need two millstones around my neck.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 24 2011,10:26
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,10:15) | Question is, can someone recommend someone a good authority on the psychology of religion? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd suggest you talk to any paedophile priest (there are 100's), no doubt the average pervert priest is more then familiar with the psychology of keeping people in fear via religion and the fear of hell.
"You'll go to hell if you tell anybody".
etc.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 24 2011,10:51
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,11:17) | OgreMkV: I find it laughable that you would quote J-Dog and then ask if I'm going to discuss this subject in an adult manner. Clearly discussing things in an adult manner isn't a requirement to be part of this group. But to answer your question simply, yes. I don't need two millstones around my neck. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Hell" can not be discussed in an adult manner; as can not unicorns or leprechauns.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2011,11:03
Quote (khan @ Mar. 24 2011,11:51) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,11:17) | OgreMkV: I find it laughable that you would quote J-Dog and then ask if I'm going to discuss this subject in an adult manner. Clearly discussing things in an adult manner isn't a requirement to be part of this group. But to answer your question simply, yes. I don't need two millstones around my neck. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Hell" can not be discussed in an adult manner; as can not unicorns or leprechauns. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what about a leprechaun doing adult things to a unicorn?
you'll go to hell for that!
"clearly this isn't a place for grown up discussions"
LMAO not with you
"This is one of the key areas I want to get into, the psychological function of hell as a way of enforcing boundaries/simplifying the world. Question is, can someone recommend someone a good authority on the psychology of religion? "
changed your mind, eh?
why would you do that? obvious troll is obvious kevin
try here
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2011,11:41
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 24 2011,14:42) | So. From the responses here, it looks like this board is about evenly divided, with the two positions outlined below:
1.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be ignored.
2.) Kevin is a disingenuous little moron/prick and should be poked with a stick for LOLs.
I vote for Kevin as #2.
Kevin - Over to you! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OPTION TWO! RAH RAH RAH! OPTION TWO! RAH RAH RAH!
(Until we get bored, which given that Kevvo is also a one trick pony, and the trick is old, will not be long)
Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 24 2011,11:42
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,10:17) | OgreMkV: I find it laughable that you would quote J-Dog and then ask if I'm going to discuss this subject in an adult manner. Clearly discussing things in an adult manner isn't a requirement to be part of this group. But to answer your question simply, yes. I don't need two millstones around my neck. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it laughable that you are not engaged in discussion on a discussion forum.
I find it laughable that you are asking a group of mostly atheists about who you should go to for information on religious psychology (most modern web browsers have this thing called a 'search bar').
I find it laughable that you claim to want an adult conversation, yet have not yet begun to do so. (In practice not concept. I do think it's possible to have an adult conversation about unicorns using the criteria I described originally).
I find it laughable that you have pledged to not lie about this production, yet refuse to admit you lied about your previous production.
I find it laughable that your religion must base its entire existence (not to mention recruitment efforts) on lies.
I find lots of things laughable... yet I'm still willing to have the conversation, I haven't found anyone on from the fundamentalist Christian side who is.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 24 2011,11:54
Kevin - And you still haven't discussed why we or anyone, should treat "hell" any more seriously than we do "leprechauns and unicorns".
Most Sincerely,
J-Dog (aka: Millstone)
Posted by: Steverino on Mar. 24 2011,11:55
< http://www.alivingdog.com/Dispelled.html >
Dispelled: An Interview with Expelled Writer Kevin Miller by Gord Wilson
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2011,11:56
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,16:17) | OgreMkV: I find it laughable that you would quote J-Dog and then ask if I'm going to discuss this subject in an adult manner. Clearly discussing things in an adult manner isn't a requirement to be part of this group. But to answer your question simply, yes. I don't need two millstones around my neck. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Awwwwwwwwww. Kevvy Wevvy is having a snit.
1) Talk about something serious and you might get serious conversation.
2) Don't lie, misrepresent, and slander innocent folks and you might get people treat you nicely.
You've already failed 2), you're failing 1).
Surely a Big Important Movie Maker like you knows how to contact Dan Dennett (for one example). Hell*, even I know how to contact Dan Dennett, and I'm a total nobody. I'm sure Prof Dennett has a few ideas about who you could contact. How about Hector Avalos? There you go, two names for you. No charge. Two names you would already know had you bothered to educate yourself beyond the "Fundy Basement" level.
And yet you come to a minor website full of nasty meanies (and nobodies as you are fond of reminding us) when you could pick up the phone/contact serious people like Wes etc individually. Gosh, it's almost like your claimed motives aren't anything resembling your real ones....curiouser and curiouser. Could it be you are in fact a disingenuous, sanctimonious, dishonest, intellectually vacuous, pious fraud? Oh wait, yes it could.
As for "discussing things in an adult manner", why do you assume you are worthy of that level of engagement? You've yet to demonstrate you can do it yourself. Remember "Expelled"? We do. A Riefenstahl-esque piece of misleading propaganda, chock full of lies and misrepresentations if there ever was one. Hell**, even old Leni had some talent, you....clearly not so much.
Now grow either a spine, or some reasonable sense that your former production was grossly and deliberately misleading (but I repeat myself), and then you might be worthy of some tiny scintilla of serious treatment. Until then...TEH MOCKERY! (Which is fun, sorry)
I may find suitable LOLcats when I find the time.
Louis
*Oops I did it again!
**And again! Naughty naughty Louis.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2011,11:59
Quote (Steverino @ Mar. 24 2011,17:55) | [SNIP]
Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your impression of Kevin. It is va-ah-AH-stly better than mine is.
Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 24 2011,11:59
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FTW!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2011,12:09
Quote (Steverino @ Mar. 24 2011,12:55) | < http://www.alivingdog.com/Dispelled.html >
Dispelled: An Interview with Expelled Writer Kevin Miller by Gord Wilson
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< think about that Kevin >
what a tard. wants to be kent hovind. yet comes here asking for "sources"
bwaahahahahaha
no folks, he aint done lying yet!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 24 2011,12:10
---------------------QUOTE------------------- . Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL @ KEVIN.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 24 2011,12:13
I wonder if Kevvo is capable or willing to discuss his claim that the existence of reason, and the human capacity for it, somehow proves the existence of his deity?
That at least strikes me as a serious topic, unlike hell (or its lesser cousin, heck). Ok so it's a well refuted claim, but I can just about see my way to believing Kevvo might not be aware of that. Reading is clearly not his strong suit.
Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 24 2011,12:38
It's actually kind of surprising that "this guy" would go that route.
The normal fundy tactic is to deny that reason is the only tool we have for figuring things out. Instead, they also claim 'revelation' as a method for figuring things out.
So, umm... what's-your-face... do you deny revelation and accept reason as the only method for finding out things about the universe
-or-
Do you accept revelation and all the problems, misconceptions, confusion, and interpretation problems that it causes... not to mention that there is no evidence that revelation comes from God, any god, or anywhere other than the fallible mind of a single human?
Which is it please. Once we know that, then we'll know exactly how to discuss things regarding 'hell' with you.
I mean, if you think reason is totally useless, then there's nothing anyone can ever do to help you. Although I will insist that you destroy any tools developed by reason (unless you are a hypocrite).
If you think reason is OK and revelation has problems, then we should easily be able to convince you that 'hell' only exists in the minds and philosophy of Christians and the only bearing it has on the universe is how it makes others act (which, of course, is the entire point, to control other people).
* Yes, there is snark in here. If you refuse to consider the question because of the snark, then you are much too thin-skinned to hang around here. If you refuse to consider appropriate questions because they were asked in a 'mean' way, then I would encourage you to return to your church and stay there. The real world is much to violent for you.
However, if you choose to respond to the questions, answer them, with approrpiate citations, then we can have a real discussion and the level of snark will probably drop.
The choice is up to you. Your actions totally determine how you will be treated. Respect is earned, not given.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2011,12:39
Quote (Steverino @ Mar. 24 2011,11:55) | < http://www.alivingdog.com/Dispelled.html >
Dispelled: An Interview with Expelled Writer Kevin Miller by Gord Wilson
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, my impression is, you're not as smart as you think you are. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just because it works desn't mean it's working.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 24 2011,13:14
Yo Kev! I got a guy for you to talk to...
< Pastor Doubts Hell - Gets Expelled / Fired >
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 24 2011,13:33
Thanks for the tip, J-Dog (re: Pastor expelled for doubting hell). I knew I came to the right place.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 24 2011,13:38
As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 24 2011,13:58
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,11:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we (well, you) don't trust the outcome of reason, how do you propose we go about refuting this? Wait for revelation?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2011,14:00
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no, and you won't, moron
Why don't you count to potato, or fuck off?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 24 2011,14:01
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,13:33) | Thanks for the tip, J-Dog (re: Pastor expelled for doubting hell). I knew I came to the right place. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if that is the kind of stuff you are looking for, you might look up Carlton Pearson (< wiki) >, out of Tulsa. He also subscribes to universal reconciliation and it got him declared a heretic.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2011,14:02
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 24 2011,14:58) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,11:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we (well, you) don't trust the outcome of reason, how do you propose we go about refuting this? Wait for revelation? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
maybe he is talking about "raisins"?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 24 2011,14:06
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 24 2011,14:00) | Why don't you count to potato, or fuck off? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 24 2011,14:12
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,13:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not nonsensical, your 'argument' is nonsensical.
1) Dawkins uses reason to argue against God being a good thing. 2) If he used reason, then he disproved his own point.
Which of those makes no sense? (hint, it's not the first one)
Why don't you run through the logic of how you arrived at the conclusion that using reason disproves a conclusion based on... well... reason.
While you are at it, you might want to read my post about other methods of knowing (of which there aren't any) and answer that question as well.
So far, I've seen several questions asked of you, but you refuse to answer. So, Louis and J-Dog are correct, if you won't talk as an adult... all we're left with is humor.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 24 2011,14:14
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 24 2011,19:58) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,11:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we (well, you) don't trust the outcome of reason, how do you propose we go about refuting this? Wait for revelation? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There may be some grammatical confusion somewhere in there. Kevin, could you please rephrase this so everyone (including non-US citizens) can get a feel of what you mean? I'm sorry but I feel there's something in there I don't get, because it makes no sense to me...
Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 24 2011,14:20
If Dawkins is right... about evolution... and evolution rewards understanding reality, planning (frog leading fly to hit it, Komodo dragon waiting for tourists), etc.... it would seem that evolution would not support reason only if the world itself were not reasonable.
Do you think there are "Rules of Right Reason" that are independent of the world? Can you mention one?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 24 2011,15:00
When a paragraph is self-refuting, adding an additional refutation to it would be redundant.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 24 2011,15:11
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Kevin: To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A problem with this argument (among a few I might add), Kevin, is that it assumes that tools have qualities requiring trust as opposed to parameters in which they can be validly operated. Why would you assume such? Does a hammer or a saw require trust? No, they require training and skill to use and some idea of why the tool would be useful for a given task. Reasoning/logic is no different - it is a tool for determining whether a given person's thought process or concept accurately holds to a given set of rules. The problem many creationists have with the concept of reason is they presume reason defines the rules. It doesn't. Repeatability, consistency, and predictability define the rules and those rules we refer to as "reality".
So in essence, your problem with Dawkin's argument is that you don't think that his tool can be used reliably to assess the rules that make up your reality. Basically that's like arguing that hammers aren't valid tools because you believe that milk should make a good nail.
Hate to break it to you, Kevin, but that would be your problem, not his.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 24 2011,16:08
< http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comment....# >
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 24 2011,16:54
Not to mention that the claim that if we can't trust arguments based on reason, then we wouldn't be able to trust that argument, either, since it's allegedly based on reason.
Posted by: kevinmillerxi on Mar. 25 2011,00:52
My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 25 2011,01:52
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,08:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your reasoning maybe the product of improbability and need leading to your perception of an existential angst.
But even a dog can figure out how to cross a busy road road without being hit by a car, many however get hit.
Your powers of reasoning don't seem to be much use why don't you take up something more suitable?
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 25 2011,02:18
[quote=kevinmillerxi,Mar. 24 2011,22:52][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah... and?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why (1)give credence to them? (2)Why feel passionately about them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Because they work. 2) Because we're wired that way.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, that was sort of English... are you saying nihilism is the only logical consequence of atheism?
We're still social animals, and subject to the drives and reactions and values that helped us survive as such.
Just because we don't see the point in believing in your imaginary friend doesn't mean we can't love our families. Can you not grasp that?
As for "reason", again: because it works! The volcano blew because magma forced its way through the earth's crust, not because we didn't sacrifice a virgin.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 25 2011,03:59
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 25 2011,02:18) | I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kevin, If by that you mean a random spree of murder and mayhem whenever the mood strikes, then, well, why don't we meet up some time and I can tell you all about it?
Seems to me the people who should know best about "logical consequences" and hell are the child abusing priests and yet they still do it.
Perhaps it's because in your religion you can be forgiven at the drop of a hat? So "hell" is something for non-believers, whatever the believer themselves has done.
So stick it up your fundament, liar boy.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 25 2011,04:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Perhaps it's because in your religion you can be forgiven at the drop of a hat? So "hell" is something for non-believers, whatever the believer themselves has done. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this beautifuly sums it up.
There's always, among religious fundies, cries of "atheists are immoral! Atheists can steal, rape, kill without fear of consequences...". But in the end, religious fundies seem to be the ones that could be prone to terrible acts without fear of consequences, since all they have to do to absolve themselves is ask for forgiveness from their sky-daddy.
What was it again? "Kill them all, God will recognize His own"?
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 25 2011,05:27
So if I'm following Kevin's reasoning,* the good or bad, right or wrong, even the up or down of anything in the universe (or to cut it down to a manageable scale, the human bit of it) can only be evaluated by invoking an external reference point.
Why is that, Kevin? Is it intrinsic in the ideas of 'good' or 'right' (or 'up' for that matter)? Is an external reference point needed for any logical argument, or just moral ones?
And how do you know that? By use of reason? A slight logical problem there, donchathink? (Hint: "a way a lone a last a loved a long the | riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.")
And if we were to concede the need for an external reference point, can tell us how you identify it? Does it just happen to resemble one you were immersed in since childhood, that you identified with in your adolescence and adult** life, and that you have built your social and working life around since then? Just asking.
Assuming for the sake of this discussion that deity-free reasoning has the rigour of blended jellyfish, why do those of us who don't belong to your club still manage to learn our multiplication tables (at least six times out four, anyway)?
And finally, why are we promised a long career shovelling coal after we die for (a) seeing how specious your argument is and (b) treating it accordingly?
* Tee hee
** Don't, Louis. It's not worth the effort.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 25 2011,06:28
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,01:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity <snipped extraneous bullshit arguments to consequences for sake of exposing fallacious premise> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but what if instead what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of mara + samsara
but what if instead what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of seven and greenish-purple
but what if instead what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of strongly and edge
but what if instead what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of (35.033387N, 92.364583W) and a fluffy texture?
you started out lying kevin
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,06:59
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,06:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So in other words "atheists are hypocrites because they don't live up to Kevin Miller's straw man of what atheism/a naturalistic world view is". Gotcha. Well it's nice to know you "argue" in good faith, Kevvo. Oh wait, "Expelled", no you don't.
Shall we take it step by step:
1) "If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity"
STRAW MAN
Simply no one claims this. It is not the result of evolutionary biology, nor a scientific understanding of the universe. You have a) simply failed to understand what you have read (if you have read anything, which I sincerely doubt, you are simply regurgitating creationist tropes) and b) tiresomely misrepresented the position of your opponents (what's new Kevvo?).
Just to take a tiny example from evolutionary biology alone, what about drift? Adaptation is not the only force at work in changing allele frequencies. There are, of course, many other examples. You also ignore history, your argument relies on everything springing to life (be it an organism or an argument) on equal footing ex nihilo. You are ignoring the ratcheting effect of history/development/evolution, again for either an argument, a process or an organism.
There is also an unstated claim here, i.e. your assumption that a natural process (or set of processes) is insufficient to produce (or examine) the universe. That is, in itself a very bold (and unsubstantiated and refuted) claim. What you fail to understand is the burden of proof here rests on you and your fellow theists/supernaturalists. You are claiming that some form of supernatural process is at work in the universe, more than that, that a supernatural process is required to understand and examine the universe.
Without evidence, and let's be exceedingly blunt, you have no evidence, why should anyone take such a claim seriously? You forget that you are not arguing against people who claim the polar opposite (i.e. that nothing other than natural processes can be at work as a matter of faith or belief, but that no evidence that any such supernatural processes are at work has yet been discovered, and until it is, we can only work with what we have evidence for. Forgive me if I doubt you can grasp the distinction). Your misrepresentations of other people's arguments are not binding on them. Your lack of knowledge and understanding do not constitute evidence. Sorry.
There's also more than a shred of "the argument from personal incredulity" underpinning your straw man here. More of that later.
2) "then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity"
NON SEQUITUR AND DERIVED FROM IGNORANCE
This does not follow from the above. It relies on the (erroneous) assumption that simple processes cannot give rise to more complex ones. It simply ignores emergent phenomena, feedback, hysteresis, all of neuroscience, in fact anything we understand about the physical functions of cognition, stimulus and response in all organisms from archea to zebras. If no emergent phenomena existed, if we couldn't (for example) demonstrate greater complexity emerging from simple systems, then you *might* have a point, but we can, so you don't.
It's also a derivative of your "How can that be? WAH!" argument from personal incredulity which underpins a lot of this drivel. Pro-tip: if you don't understand it, it doesn't follow that no one else does. Pro-tip 2: any argument that can be refuted by the fact that water freezes is a very stupid argument. Forgive me if I cannot be bothered to explain why that is the case and why it is relevant here. Do your own homework.
3) "Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin."
NON SEQUITUR AND INCOHERENT
So because thoughts and arguments derive from natural process they are of no more "consequence" (a weasel word if I ever saw one) than some random piece of non-cognitive biology. Even if this was true, and it isn't, so what? Hint: Even you don't think with you pancreas. Since you {cough} "expand" on this below, I'll eviscerate it there.
4) "If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?"
NON SEQUITUR AND INCOHERENT
"Significance", "consequence", "feel", "credence", "passion"? You are profoundly confused. There are two mix ups here (at least.
a) Passion/feeling/emotions: We are organisms that have evolved complex, multilevel brains and endocrine systems. Our feelings and emotions "reduce" to surges of hormones and neurotransmitters etc. Your sense that there is even a coherent "self" behind your eyes somewhere is as much an illusion constructed by multiple brain processes as the orientation of the images you see is. So what? Because some cognitive process is "reduced" to other "simpler" processes it somehow robs itself of meaning? This is utterly incoherent. It doesn't even begin to follow from "natural processes made X therefore X has no more significance than Y". You are trying to argue against a welter of barely related/unrelated items and messing your pants in the process.
The fact that I get a surge of oxytocin when I hug my wife or son and that is part of a chain of neurochemical events that causes me to feel something I call "love" or "happiness" in no way invalidates that feeling. The complaint here is the erroneous one of the Romantic poets, the one that claimed that Newton explaining the rainbow robbed it of its beauty. It's utter arse gravy. It is still more than possible to be fully human, to appreciate the superficial wonder of an emotion, to lose oneself unthinkingly in the moment whilst understanding the phenomena that underpin it and appreciating their beauty. The fact that we can attach some subjective thought to something does not invalidate that subjective thought in any sense.
< XKCD > today does the job:
b) Naive relativism: Why is my surge of oxytocin more "significant" or "of more consequence" than a surge of (to use your example) insulin. Significant in what way? Of what consequence? If I am a diabetic the extent and timing of my surge of insulin might decide whether I live or die, I'd say that was of some consequence. These weasel words you are using are dependent on context, without context one cannot ascribe priority. This is an appeal to common prejudice on your part, it's not logic, it's rhetoric, and shallow, puerile, transparent rhetoric at that. It could only convince something with the intellectual gifts of a yoghurt.
Also, when it comes to understanding the world around me I tend to use the neurons in my brain, not the Islets of Langerhans in my pancreas. I'm not sure what organs and cells you use to think with, I have my doubts they are part of the central nervous system, but you should really try to shift the foundation of your cognition from your fundament.
c) Trustworthiness of naturally derived thoughts: They're not all trustworthy.
Sorry, is this a surprise?
To paraphrase the great Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction: "Trial and error, motherfucker? Do you know it?". Ok so it isn't all trial and error (see 1) for examples of why, there's a bit more to it....understatement of the decade!) but it's an easy place to start.
If I believe I am being delicately sodomised by a purple space goat, an unpleasant thought I assure you, I can check that thought. I can match it to sensory input, I can match it to previous experience and the previous experiences of others to some extent. None of these processes are perfect, but they don't need to be. I need to achieve some level of confidence in my thoughts, practical or pragmatic certainty not absolute certainty. I feel no sensation of being sodomised by a purple space goat, I can't see any space goat in the mirror, there are no goaty noises and I'm fully dressed. Couple all that to the well documented distribution of goats in our solar system (all earth bound), their colour, their habits and the fact that it doesn't appear to be the case that a rash of purple space goat sodomy has broken out nation wide, and I can pretty confidently assume that that thought was an untrustworthy one.
The subtext here is that you are asking for something no one can provide: absolute epistemological certainty. Even faith and revelation as described in one tedious theological tract after another (and I've read 'em) cannot deliver this. It can only deliver the appearance of this to an individual, which, I hope I don't have to point out to you, is a different thing. It could all be pixies underneath, but in the absence of any reliable evidence for it all being pixies underneath I feel confident in discounting that possibility until some evidence comes up.
And again, your whine...sorry "argument" here ignores what I have been referring to as "history".
d) Significance beyond "mere" subjectivity:
History, socialisation, culture, development, experience, these are all just words to you aren't they Kevvo? People do not spring into existence from nothing fully formed. As mentioned in 1) they have history. Even if that history is merely the accumulation of biological "accidents" (and it so isn't). As we gain a growing understanding of embryology, for example, we learn how developments in utero can have profound effects on the adult. The experiences of a young infant can, to some extent, determine the subjective preferences of the adult. What we have is a welter of disparate, sometimes conflicting, sometimes reinforcing influences from many myriad sources. This will give rise to a plethora of conflicting/reinforcing (subjective) senses and impulses. Why one specific subjective impulse or sense can be prioritised over another is a very specific question, not one uninformed by reason, but one that requires a greater understanding of the relevant, specific context of that impulse or sense. We're not a blank slate.
5) "I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view."
NON SEQUITUR AND ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Since you a) demonstrably do not understand any "atheistic point of view", and b) demonstrably have not represented any "atheistic point of view" beyond your straw man version of one, then this is self-refuting. It's the old "if you were really an atheist you'd be out raping and pillaging" argument made slightly more polite...emphasis on "sightly". It doesn't address the arguments made by atheists (and there are a variety), it seeks only to avoid any arguments by directing attention away from the argument and to the supposed characteristics of your fictional straw atheist. It is a classic argumentum ad hominem, argument at the person not the argument. Note that this is different from abuse. I and other give you abuse, not argumenta ad homines. You are a moron because your arguments are palpable horseshit, your arguments are not horseshit because you are a palpable moron. Forgive me again if I lack any faith in you grasping that distinction.
Worse than that, your "argument" (I hate to dignify it so) implies that what keeps you from "living the logical consequences of an atheistic point of view", whatever they might be, is the belief in a magic man in the sky who watches you masturbate. Sorry Kevvo, but if all that keeps you on the straight and narrow is unthinking fear of punishment...hell if you will (gosh, relevance!)...then you can keep your religion and all that goes with it. Atheism doesn't equate to, or advocate, amorality or immorality.
Your "argument" here also doesn't even slightly follow from what precedes it, and borders on incoherence. Atheism is not a world view or a system of beliefs, or a religion. It is a simple philosophical position on a specific claim or set of claims. You claim the Christian god exists, ascribe to him certain attributes, make certain claims about him. I (and others) go and look for evidence for that claim and find it isn't there. We look at the "evidence" you put up and find it to be identical to the "evidence" you reject for other deities. Hence we simply do not believe your claim to have been demonstrated. Hell*, most of the arguments you do make might lead one to some vague deism at best, they certainly apply no more concretely to your specific deity than, say, the Sikh deity.
What we find is EXACTLY the same special pleading and drivel that we find when someone claims that Thor exists (for example). The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. You adhere to the religion of your society and environment for some reason (and more power to you, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket) and reject other religions because, well, they are OTHER religions, and therefore "untrue". You can see through the transparent tissue of nonsense supporting them, perhaps, but for reasons beknownst only to you, don't see the self same problems with your own religious claims. I won't give you credit for a rational analysis of other faiths because I seriously doubt, based on your drivel, that you have even bothered to emerge from a fundamentalist basement to squint at the sunlight, let alone pursued an open minded study of world religions. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I'll bet I'm not.
Sorry, wasn't I nice enough for you to pay attention? Hmmmm I wonder, would I be nice if you stopped lying and bullshitting (the two are not equivalent)?
So to close, in the immortal words of the prophet Mohammed: "Fuck off you toilet"**
I thank you.
Louis
* Oooops, I seem to keep doing that.
** Couldn't resist. I'm a bad, bad bunny. I'm off for a spanking.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,07:01
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,19:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your inability to read for comprehension and do your own homework is not evidence or impressive.
Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,07:02
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 24 2011,21:00) | When a paragraph is self-refuting, adding an additional refutation to it would be redundant. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But occasionally amusing ;-)
Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,07:04
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 25 2011,11:27) | [SNIP]
...adult**...
[SNIP]
** Don't, Louis. It's not worth the effort. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh it SO is.
But I will be a good boy. Well, sort of. Maybe.
Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 25 2011,07:33
Louis
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am being delicately sodomised by a purple space goat ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAHA
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,07:39
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 25 2011,13:33) | Louis
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am being delicately sodomised by a purple space goat ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAHA ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{Coughs politely}
I fear you may have extracted the wrong "take home message" from that portion of the post.
;-)
Louis
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,07:48
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 24 2011,09:24) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote (khan @ Mar. 23 2011,19:39) | Quote (Robin @ Mar. 23 2011,16:50) | Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.
However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).
It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.
They are OTPaulians, not Christians. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.
And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 25 2011,07:56
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2011,08:39) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 25 2011,13:33) | Louis
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am being delicately sodomised by a purple space goat ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAHA ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{Coughs politely}
I fear you may have extracted the wrong "take home message" from that portion of the post.
;-)
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ah yes i see, "purple" is subjective inn'tit
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,08:04
[quote=kevinmillerxi,Mar. 25 2011,00:52][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BZZZZZZ!!! WRONG!
What you're doing is equating meta property results with the underlying causal process. Basically your argument here is no different than insisting that if salt is nothing but the product of sodium and chloride (or water is nothing but the product of hydrogen and oxygen or...), then the outcome couldn't be anything more than the same. Dare ya to put sodium and chloride separately on your food and try to eat it. Further, I double dog dare you to insist that sodium and chloride sitting in separate jars are the same thing as salt.
In the same way, reason (the 'taste', if you will, of using salt) is merely a tool (or in this case "spice") that is a meta product of the functioning human brain (the salt in this case). That evolution - a process of "chance and necessity" (or the sodium and chloride) happen to the process that produces the brain does not mean that the products of the brain are somehow chance and necessity.
The rest of your post is just more details on your erroneous premises and faulty conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's perfectly easy to live out an atheistic world-view. You start with "I'm hungry" and everything you know about reality follows from there.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 25 2011,08:13
Too many potential POTWs to decide.
If only I had religion and wasn't only driven by chance + necessity...
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,08:15
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2011,06:59) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OMG!!! Abso-EFFFING-Lutely the FUNNIEST and most insightful bit! I'm dyin' here! LOL!
And this:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...is my sig!!!
LMAO!!
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,08:32
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 25 2011,14:13) | Too many potential POTWs to decide.
If only I had religion and wasn't only driven by chance + necessity... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as an atheist in the Kevvo-verse shouldn't you be asking "which POTW nomination allows me to rape the most women and kids"?
Obviously it's the Atheist Way (TM Patent Pending)
Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 25 2011,08:40
If you believe in Hell And then have children You are a monster.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 25 2011,08:54
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2011,09:40) | If you believe in Hell And then have children You are a monster. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
absofuckinglutely
add "and oppose abortion*"
* and if you think that aborted fetuses go to hell, you worship a monster
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 25 2011,09:19
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 25 2011,14:04) | Further, I double dog dare you to insist that sodium and chloride sitting in separate jars are the same thing as salt. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And so we identify the roots of Kevin's problems:
- defective seasoning - waging an assalt on Enlightenment values - his history as a cellar of propagandumentaries
No wonder his last film barely made a wooden nacl.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 25 2011,09:28
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 25 2011,08:13) | Too many potential POTWs to decide.
If only I had religion and wasn't only driven by chance + necessity... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alright Lou - BACK TO WORK! POTW** all - around for everyone*!
* No, NOT Kevin.
** So, to make it easier for Lou, do we need a "Thread Of The Week Award"? Or, if Kev is involved a "Thread Of The Weak"?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 25 2011,10:22
Louis, you rock. Thanks.
Miller-dude, what is your response to this simple statement.
Your God come to you and says, "From henceforth, I require that all my worshippers eat one baby a month or they will go to Hell."
You either a) say "Pass the Ketchup" in which case you are a evil, evil man.
b) say "No" in which case you have denied your God's authority to make moral decisions on your behalf and instead are fully capable of making your own moral decisions... even without God.
c) say "God would never say something like that", in which case, there is a morality that is external to God which even He must follow. Which, again, means that you can go directly to that external morality and skip God entirely. Provided you have the strength and courage to do so.
Atheists understand that morality and ethics is based on one's culture. To a Mayan, it was perfectly acceptable to sacrifice a young woman in the Spring. The young boys competed for a chance to be sacrificed. To a citizen of Judea about 2011 years ago, slaves were perfectly acceptable and a slave could be beat almost to death. Women and children were regularly stoned to death while the entire village looked on. etc. etc. etc.
Our culture does not find any of that acceptable. Hell (copying Louis), even the Southern Baptists have taken slavery out of their charter (in 1996!!!!).
So, how can atheists be moral? Because we are smart enough to know what is acceptable in our culture.
That is why we don't need your Hell. Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 25 2011,10:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- That is why we don't need your Hell, your god, or you. Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre - Fixed That For You!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 25 2011,10:39
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 24 2011,10:10) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- . Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL @ KEVIN. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall this was an argument invented by CS Lewis, and very popular with creationists. And makes me wonder what the existance of "stupid" proves. I think it must prove something.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 25 2011,10:47
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 25 2011,10:28) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- That is why we don't need your Hell, your god, or you. Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre - Fixed That For You! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah yes, I did forget those little bits.
Thanks!
Why don't these people go form a commune or something? I could probably get them a deal on Flavor Aid.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 25 2011,10:51
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 25 2011,06:48) | [quote=JAM,Mar. 24 2011,09:24][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote (khan @ Mar. 23 2011,19:39) | Quote (Robin @ Mar. 23 2011,16:50) | Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.
However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).
It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.
They are OTPaulians, not Christians. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.
And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.
He's one of the Pharisees that Jesus railed against.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 25 2011,11:18
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,01:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Substituting 'evolutionary' for atheist for a second...
Yes, the committed evolutionist realizes their reasoning faculties are not perfect. We suffer from optical illusions in one part of our nervous system and brain, we suffer other kinds of reasoning illusions and cognitive defects in other parts. So we don't rely on our own reasoning exclusively, we test it, ask others, etc. before proceeding. It is that simple.
And when reality doesn't abide by our previous ideas of reason, we have to abandon them and invent new ones. That is what makes quantum mechanics so hard, our intuitioins and reason are no longer valid at that scale.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 25 2011,11:30
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 25 2011,10:51) | Quote (Robin @ Mar. 25 2011,06:48) | Quote (JAM @ Mar. 24 2011,09:24) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Quote (khan @ Mar. 23 2011,19:39) | Quote (Robin @ Mar. 23 2011,16:50) | Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.
Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:
1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.
2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.
3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.
4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.
5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).
Chew on that for a minute or so.
So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.
Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.
However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).
It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.
They are OTPaulians, not Christians. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.
And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.
He's one of the Pharisees that Jesus railed against. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think Robin is referring to the origins of Christianity rather the current practice.
Even in the Bible there is a significant difference in what has come to be called Christianity and what Jesus called The Christ actually did, said, and the church he founded.
It's pretty obvious that Jesus' Christianity no longer exists. If you want to be exact, it should be called Jewish Christianity. That's what it was, a Christian message laid on a Jewish culture and tradition.
What we call 'Christianity' comes almost directly from Paul. In the letters that we can attribute to Paul, there seems to be some complaint and fighting between him and the stewards of Jesus' church (James, brother of Jesus, and Peter). In most cases, the people Paul is exorting his believers to ignore are James, Peter, and their disciples.
Really, the religions all categorically called Christianity, should be called Paulism.
My personal belief, with no basis in reality other than I think would have been politically prudent, is that a disciple of Paul wrote the Gospel according to John, for the specific purpose of having a gospel that could be used outside of Jewish tradition and supported Paul's own belief system instead of the 'traditional' belief systems.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,12:03
[quote=OgreMkV,Mar. 25 2011,10:22][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your God come to you and says, "From henceforth, I require that all my worshippers eat one baby a month or they will go to Hell."
You either a) say "Pass the Ketchup" in which case you are a evil, evil man. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Technically, if he says, "pass the ketchup", he's not being evil since by his definition (I'm sure) his god sets the rules on morality - if he's being consistent that is. He'd certainly be considered a horrible reprobate by our society's standards, but then he really shouldn't care about such things - again if he's being consistent.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So, how can atheists be moral? Because we are smart enough to know what is acceptable in our culture.
That is why we don't need your Hell. Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. To elaborate on this, many psychologists and counselors note that the people we label as "good", "ethical", "moral", etc appear to have a greater ability to recognize how others will react to the "good" people's behavior/actions and are better able to plan ahead for those reactions. It seems that "good" people tend to desire other people to react favorably towards them, so they choose actions that have the greatest chance of garnering a favorable response.
Pretty straight forward If-Then social understanding if you think about it.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,12:10
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 25 2011,10:51) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.
And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.
He's one of the Pharisees that Jesus railed against. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes...I was being sloppy there. If we're being precise and all, then what I meant to say was that the majority of Christian churches hold to the Paulian version of hell that I oversimplified. I agree that some Christians recognize that Paul's version is not, however, what the bible fully teachers and thus have a more broad - and usually metaphorical - understanding of the concept.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,12:11
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 25 2011,14:54) | Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2011,09:40) | If you believe in Hell And then have children You are a monster. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
absofuckinglutely
add "and oppose abortion*"
* and if you think that aborted fetuses go to hell, you worship a monster ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait! I thought "God" sent unbaptised babies and aborted foetuses to Heck, which is like Hell but not as nasty. When he does this he is operating in his official capacity as "Gosh". So Gosh darns babies to Heck, whereas God damns sinners to Hell.*
Have I got this wrong?
Also, why can't I own a Welshman (not that I'd want to) and when is appropriate to ask a woman if she is menstruating in a church? These are important, serious questions. {Serious Face}
Louis
*But he loves you! {Two thumbs up + Cheesy grin}
Edited to add (because I can): I will be bringing in my favourite expletive of the year should Kevvo act the tit any further. That expletive is "Dead Jew on a stick!". Just so y'alls is forewarned.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 25 2011,12:18
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 25 2011,11:30) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I think Robin is referring to the origins of Christianity rather the current practice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks Ogre and nice summary. To be fair though, JAM's point is well-taken. I was being sloppy in that my overly simplified summary of Christian hell represents what most Christian institutions teach and what most sects hold to, if only in a vague way.
But there is no "religion of Christian" and in some respects, there never was, so I was really incorrect in phrasing it that way. The Christian groups that sprang up in the first and second centuries were VERY diverse and many got out shouted or simply destroyed as heretical.
Posted by: JAM on Mar. 25 2011,14:28
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 25 2011,10:30) | Really, the religions all categorically called Christianity, should be called Paulism. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exactly.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 25 2011,15:14
Should we start a new thread..."Where's Kevin?"
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 25 2011,15:28
Maybe he's at home alone?
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 25 2011,18:32
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,13:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Refute what? It doesn't even make sense.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 25 2011,18:33
P.S. I have been busy and have not waded through all of these pages yet.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 25 2011,18:41
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 25 2011,19:32) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2011,13:38) | As far as this argument goes:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To me, something like The God Delusion is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So it’s nonsensical. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Refute what? It doesn't even make sense. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Something about refuting the Tooth Fairy and not using birth control...whatever.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 25 2011,18:46
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,00:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in other words, yellow + blue pigment does not equal green?
I refute it thus: the evidence shows otherwise.
You're sitting around navel-gazing.
Learn some facts.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 25 2011,18:51
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 25 2011,19:46) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,00:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in other words, yellow + blue pigment does not equal green?
I refute it thus: the evidence shows otherwise.
You're sitting around navel-gazing.
Learn some facts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Facts would fuck with his total world view.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 25 2011,20:02
Quote (khan @ Mar. 26 2011,00:51) | Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 25 2011,19:46) | Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 25 2011,00:52) | My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?
I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.
But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in other words, yellow + blue pigment does not equal green?
I refute it thus: the evidence shows otherwise.
You're sitting around navel-gazing.
Learn some facts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Facts would fuck with his total world view. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So would learning.
Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 25 2011,20:57
He's probably thinking the same thing that the colonial marines were wondering when they got to the colonists.
"What the fuck have I gotten into and why the fuck did I voluntarily come here?"
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 25 2011,21:08
Kevin,
Hell is where other people go when they die. Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Homos. Especially Homos.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 25 2011,21:44
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So, in other words, yellow + blue pigment does not equal green?
I refute it thus: the evidence shows otherwise.
You're sitting around navel-gazing.
Learn some facts. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's observing lint?
Posted by: lkeithlu on Mar. 26 2011,09:49
I don't exactly feel qualified to wade into this morass, but I will do so anyway: A question for Kevin:
Why does this film single out Hell? From my perspective, you can't separate hell from all the other things that religion expects you to believe. Why only hell? As a non-believer, I lump it in with everything else supernatural: angels, heaven, gods, miracles, demons, devils, possession, prayer. From a evolutionary perspective (ironically) religion makes perfect sense. As intelligence and self awareness grew, so did questions about how the world came to be and what happens after death. Humans have a natural tendency to perceive the world this way, and what they are taught by their society reinforces it. People who subscribe to the cultural beliefs are more successful in passing on their genes than those who don't.
At some level, I have to agree with the other posters here regarding your motives. Expelled was an awful and dishonest film, and gullible people accepted it as fact. As an educator, I see the country slipping more and more into a trend of rejecting sound science; my state is one of many who have pending legislation to allow the most recent manifestation of creationist interference ("academic freedom to teach weaknesses in evolution") Your film, I'm sad to say, is used as support for these efforts, making my job all the harder.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 26 2011,11:29
Just a quick thought on Hell.
It promises eternal suffering (how very christian). But, in my own experience, with time you can get used to all types of pain (I've been a martyr to toothache and backache for a long time, but don't even feel anything anymore). So, how does this work? Exponantial increase in pain levels until the end of eternity? (And believe you me, in the wise words of Bad Religion: "Eternity, my friend, is a long fucking time"). Because if that's how it works, god's little torturous helpers would have to at least start by giving me a blowjob as a form of torture before they can even reach the point when pain becomes just a tiny nuisance...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 26 2011,14:09
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 26 2011,11:29) | Just a quick thought on Hell.
It promises eternal suffering (how very christian). But, in my own experience, with time you can get used to all types of pain (I've been a martyr to toothache and backache for a long time, but don't even feel anything anymore). So, how does this work? Exponantial increase in pain levels until the end of eternity? (And believe you me, in the wise words of Bad Religion: "Eternity, my friend, is a long fucking time"). Because if that's how it works, god's little torturous helpers would have to at least start by giving me a blowjob as a form of torture before they can even reach the point when pain becomes just a tiny nuisance... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read "Surface Detail" by Ian Banks. It's a way better description of hell than what they whiny little Christians call hell.
Of course, we've had 2000 years to refine our ideas of hell from when Paul or his disciples (I suspect) wrote revelation.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 26 2011,15:01
Thanks for the recommandation Ogre. I've heard good things about that book and will order it.
I was just musing. What would be the reaction of Kev' and friends if Jesus Himself appeared to them and said something along the lines of "stop believing in me, God and the Bible right now, under pain of eternal punishment and suffering".
I'd like to be a fly on those walls...
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 26 2011,18:00
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 26 2011,15:01) | Thanks for the recommandation Ogre. I've heard good things about that book and will order it.
I was just musing. What would be the reaction of Kev' and friends if Jesus Himself appeared to them and said something along the lines of "stop believing in me, God and the Bible right now, under pain of eternal punishment and suffering".
I'd like to be a fly on those walls... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have asked believers how they know that, just hypothetically understand, the Bible was not written by Satan to confuse them. I have yet to receive an answer other than, "But it wasn't!"
I mean, how can they know? They weren't there when it was written, were they?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 27 2011,18:31
If he was at all honest he would start with the Bible and find that the Christian view of Satan, devils and Hell does not exist in the Bible and is largely an invention of the Dark Age.
He also needs to deal with the fact that the various Christian sects have a very different view of how to avoid going to hell.
Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 27 2011,18:55
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31) | If he was at all honest he would start with the Bible and find that the Christian view of Satan, devils and Hell does not exist in the Bible and is largely an invention of the Dark Age.
He also needs to deal with the fact that the various Christian sects have a very different view of how to avoid going to hell.
Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in heaven.
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 27 2011,19:57
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31) | Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I beg to differ: According to mainstream Christianity, everyone deserves to end up in Hell, because everyone is maximally disgusting and sinful and evil JUST BECAUSE. So sayeth the lovely, life-affirming doctrine of Original Sin, don't'cha know.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 28 2011,04:25
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 28 2011,01:57) | Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31) | Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I beg to differ: According to mainstream Christianity, everyone deserves to end up in Hell, because everyone is maximally disgusting and sinful and evil JUST BECAUSE. So sayeth the lovely, life-affirming doctrine of Original Sin, don't'cha know. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it extremely telling that original sin derived from curiosity and the desire for knowledge. Well, if you believe one version of the fairy tales that is.
Louis
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 28 2011,04:44
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2011,12:25) | Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 28 2011,01:57) | Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31) | Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I beg to differ: According to mainstream Christianity, everyone deserves to end up in Hell, because everyone is maximally disgusting and sinful and evil JUST BECAUSE. So sayeth the lovely, life-affirming doctrine of Original Sin, don't'cha know. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it extremely telling that original sin derived from curiosity and the desire for knowledge. Well, if you believe one version of the fairy tales that is.
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's funny I thought OS was something to do with a talking snake (with at least two legs) and a woman.
Snakes came out the winners there didn't they when he condemed all snake kind to crawl on their bellies? Wait 'till the big G finds out that one in the garden of Eden didn't have legs to start with*.
*NOT SMART ARSE EVO COMMENTS ON SNAKE EVOLUTION PLEASE I'M TALKING ABOUT A MYTH.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 28 2011,10:18
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2011,02:25) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|