The "Afterlife is a Fairy Story"

[detlef]

So, it's right there with Franco's Spain on the "liberal" scale, huh?

More or less.

[Hugh B Tool]

A bit off subject, but related. I've noticed over the years that some of the most booksmart people are less into religion. Not sure why. Also noticed and have been backed by studies that Agnostics even Atheists know more about the Bible and can quote an answer more questions about the Bible than every Sunday Christians. Maybe more of a Historical look at Theology? Not sure why this is either, but see it all the time.

[BeeR]

BeeR, I realize that one's morality born from faith will always overlap with what they want to see in laws.

Sure, although that is true regardless of where one's morality comes from.

 

My issue comes up with phrases like "God given rights" or using that divine authority as a basis for why the law should be. The two need to be separated, IMO, to have any validity outside of one's church.

No argument there; I'm all for seperation of church and state.

 

And, as far as this just being the fringe whackos? There's a very sleazy and poorly thought-out abortion bill, riddled with lies and deceit, working it's way through the NC Congress as we speak. This is not just a bunch of hillbilly bible thumpers, this is the state government for one of the most progressive states south of the Mason Dixie.

As for your (anecdotal) evidence, it is only that, although a potentially significant one. Obviously they cannot simply overturn Roe vs Wade, but that's probably best to have in its own thread.....

 

PS who says fringe whackos aren't peppered throughout NC gubmint? I've been there enough and just based on the roads/signs alone I felt it was pretty whacked. Course that might just be NCDOT, but Besides, this is gubmint we're talking about.

Edited May 17, 2011 by BeeR

[Kid Cid]

No, you missed my point entirely. Neither "side" can prove/disprove the existance of God, and expecting or trying to do so is ridiculous. It's kinda like trying to measure sound with a ruler, ie in the sense that you can't and therefore concluding that they must not exist (I could probably think of a better example given time, but hopefully you get the gist). God is entirely beyond being scientifically proven.

 

This right here is what I was getting at with my flippant statement about the book. There is not one other aspect of the world around us that that we don't approach with a fair (and utterly reasonable IMO) bit of skepticism. In fact, the mantra of the more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the evidence must be in support of this claim seems to be the guiding rule for many in the world around us and many of us here at the Huddle. Yet, as soon as someone makes a statement as to the fantastic claims of something attributable to a supernatural or otherworldly being that is supposedly in charge or responsible for the world around us, we immediately drop our skepticism and accept these claims for some unacknowledged reason.

 

To be sure, there are experiences that many individuals, including some here at the Huddle, have had that seem to defy a rational explanation. It is these experiences that we should approach with an open mind and to my way of thinking, an open mind includes skepticism of any fantastic explanation that does not come with some sort of rational data in support of said explanation. That doesn't mean to immediately dismiss these experiences, but to simply apply the same level of logic testing that we would apply to any other experience in our life.

 

In fact, I believe He made a point of making sure it's not possible because true belief in Him comes from faith. If He was proven beyond any reasonable doubt, we wouldn't be free-willed independent beings who come to Him by choice, but little more than robots simply accepting the obvious which has been blasted in our face. Belief in Him would have no more meaning than believing in a blade of grass. To believe in someone and/or what they stand for despite a lack of proof - that is faith and that is what makes it solid and real.

 

I'm sorry but this is self rationalizing without any shred of evidence. All you're doing is wishing for something and saying that by wishing for it, that makes it real. We tell eight year old kids that this is foolish behavior but because it is about a god we cheerfully let people get away with this self delusional behavior because we want to wish that it is true as well.

 

Which, allegiance/etc to God notwithstanding, are no more than codes of morality, which people, theist and non-theist alike, live by anyway. They say stuff like don't kill, don't steal, etc. ie so what? Most if not all also recognize that people are inherently very imperfect and sinners - nobody makes it to the "good version of afterlife" based on their own pious life per se, it's more in their intent as well as God's forgiveness. I suspect he rolls his eyes and sighs a lot.

 

If someone came to you today and gave you a stereotype of a person that you were supposed to be and then laid down the rules you had to live by in order to match your life to that stereotype and then promised you that if you did match that stereotype they would pay you handsomely but only after a hundred years, you would out and out laugh at them. Then perhaps you would also sit down and wonder what their real agenda was and what they were trying to achieve by getting you to buy into this system. Yet this is the exact model perpetuated by every religion promoting the afterlife as a payoff for playing by their rules while you're alive. Still, because there is this concept of a god attached to it, we once again cheerfully refuse to question any of it.

 

 

I hear you; very logical. And no matter how the rules are worded, their will always be situations with extenuating circumstances etc. And since any given church is run by human beings, they are also inherently imperfect.

 

And this isn't aimed at you or anyone specifically, but I think it would be great if people remembered that not all theists or even Christians are militant and/or fundamentalists. Using that as an excuse to dismiss all religions or "religious people" is idiotic to say the least. Also the whole "all these people knocking on my door" whine is absurdly overblown. I live in the freakin Bible belt and that's an infrequent occurance - and not once did anyone "get in my face." If I said go away (and I did), they quickly and politely complied. The horror.

 

No, I do not dismiss religions because of any apparent fundamentalist behavior. I dismiss religions because each and every one is based upon a faulty premise that cannot stand up to logical inquiry. This is not an affirmation of my atheistic beliefs, rather, a refutation of the logical house of cards existing religions and purveyors of spirituality use as a basis for their stance.

[rattsass]

I remember when I was a teenager, trying to grasp the concept of "what was there before there was a universe, was there nothing? And if so isn't nothing something? And if there was only a God, surrounded by this nothing-ness, where did he come from? I never could get to the bottom of any of these questions so therefore I concluded that there was no point getting all high and mighty with ones opinion of the "afterlife." I tend to agree with Hawking's opinions, people spend their lives wringing their hands about what happens at the end, convincing themselves something better is coming as a giant pacifier.

 

I don't worry about death. Because the worst part about dying is thinking about it while you are alive. A total waste of precious time. I figure if there is an afterlife we'll all get what is coming to us regardless of whose collection plate we fill.

[BeeR]

This right here is what I was getting at with my flippant statement about the book. There is not one other aspect of the world around us

Key words there. You also miss the point entirely and repeatedly. God is well beyond "the world around us." Again, trying to apply scientific logic or methods to something well beyond science and scientific proof is short-sighted - at best. To people who go "you can't prove God's existance!" my response is "well freaking duh Sherlock."

 

Yet, as soon as someone makes a statement as to the fantastic claims of something attributable to a supernatural or otherworldly being that is supposedly in charge or responsible for the world around us, we immediately drop our skepticism and accept these claims for some unacknowledged reason.

Yes I'm sure that's how religions come into existance and become entrenched: some guy walks up and makes a statement as to the fantastic claims of something attributable to a supernatural or otherworldly being that is supposedly in charge or responsible for the world around us and people immediately drop their skepticism and accept these claims for some unacknowledged reason.

 

Cmon. No religion I'm aware of has ever lacked for a great deal of growing pains, skeptics, "haters" etc etc. In fact it's all the rage nowdays. It's very "hip" not just to be agnostic or atheist, but to be theist (esp Christian) haters.

 

 

I'm sorry but this is self rationalizing without any shred of evidence. All you're doing is wishing for something and saying that by wishing for it, that makes it real.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Once again you're trying to apply some kind of "scientific method" to something for which that is N/A. You either don't get it or refuse to acknowledge it, but whatever. I certainly don't think that wishing for something makes it real.

 

this is the exact model perpetuated by every religion promoting the afterlife as a payoff for playing by their rules while you're alive. Still, because there is this concept of a god attached to it, we once again cheerfully refuse to question any of it.

Interesting that you keep saying "we," which would include you. Freudian slip? Closet theist?

 

Can we dispense with the pointless oversimplifications and generalizations now?

 

Some people accept blindly, but many do not. In fact, I would confidently bet the house that very few theists never seriously question their beliefs. Can't help but wonder what that percentage is for athests.

Edited May 18, 2011 by BeeR

[millerx]

All I want to know is...

 

If I live as close as I can to perfect life, treat others as I expect to be treated, help those less fortunate... If I'm charitable, caring, honorable, etc... (basically live my life with all of the honor that the book conveys as righteous and heavenly)...

 

And yet I don't believe in "him" or "her" when I kick the bucket?? Is there a place for me in heaven?? Does all my good deeds get tossed out the window because my one flaw was that I did not have "faith" that there was a God, or Son of Christ, or Muhammad, or a Golden Calf??

[Double Agent]

All I want to know is...

 

If I live as close as I can to perfect life, treat others as I expect to be treated, help those less fortunate... If I'm charitable, caring, honorable, etc... (basically live my life with all of the honor that the book conveys as righteous and heavenly)...

 

And yet I don't believe in "him" or "her" when I kick the bucket?? Is there a place for me in heaven?? Does all my good deeds get tossed out the window because my one flaw was that I did not have "faith" that there was a God, or Son of Christ, or Muhammad, or a Golden Calf??

 

God is a very loving, forgiving God. But you will go to Hell. Sorry.

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

these threads are always funny. they never get old...

[Savage Beatings]

All I want to know is...

 

If I live as close as I can to perfect life, treat others as I expect to be treated, help those less fortunate... If I'm charitable, caring, honorable, etc... (basically live my life with all of the honor that the book conveys as righteous and heavenly)...

 

And yet I don't believe in "him" or "her" when I kick the bucket?? Is there a place for me in heaven?? Does all my good deeds get tossed out the window because my one flaw was that I did not have "faith" that there was a God, or Son of Christ, or Muhammad, or a Golden Calf??

 

None of us are ever going to be good enough to gain eternal salvation on our own. That's why Christians need the redemption of our Savior. Without him, we all fail regardless of how honorable we try to live.

 

Whether or not God will give you a final opportunity to choose your fate, I can't pretend to know.

[untateve]

None of us are ever going to be good enough to gain eternal salvation on our own. That's why Christians need the redemption of our Savior. Without him, we all fail regardless of how honorable we try to live.

 

Whether or not God will give you a final opportunity to choose your fate, I can't pretend to know.

 

And therein lies one of my biggest problem with religion. Christians need the redemption of our Savior to gain eternal salvation. Essentially, by this belief, anyone not Christian could be in serious trouble. Maybe God will give you a final opportunity to choose your fate, or perhaps, because you were raised Jewish, you get eternal damnation. Sucks to be you.

[detlef]

And therein lies one of my biggest problem with religion. Christians need the redemption of our Savior to gain eternal salvation. Essentially, by this belief, anyone not Christian could be in serious trouble. Maybe God will give you a final opportunity to choose your fate, or perhaps, because you were raised Jewish, you get eternal damnation. Sucks to be you.

Not to mention that it seems to place a higher value on faith in god than in being a good person. After all, it seems like none of us can make it on merit. So, ultimately, it's sort of important that you're a good person, but absolutely a deal breaker if you don't join the club.

[TimC]

And therein lies one of my biggest problem with religion. Christians need the redemption of our Savior to gain eternal salvation. Essentially, by this belief, anyone not Christian could be in serious trouble. Maybe God will give you a final opportunity to choose your fate, or perhaps, because you were raised Jewish, you get eternal damnation. Sucks to be you.

 

Conversely, you can spend your whole life lying, cheating and stealing and simply ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus as your saviour at the last second and you're good to go. At least that's what most religious people seem to believe, obviously.

[Kid Cid]

Key words there. You also miss the point entirely and repeatedly. God is well beyond "the world around us." Again, trying to apply scientific logic or methods to something well beyond science and scientific proof is short-sighted - at best. To people who go "you can't prove God's existance!" my response is "well freaking duh Sherlock."

 

Actually, I get the point very well. You have chosen to accept an unvalidated statement (a god exists) as fact via the self defining principal of placing this god beyond the bounds of human conception. If I ask you where this notion of a god came from, you will tell me that it was taught to you by your parents or from reading a book or perhaps both. At no time do you actually have to provide any factual evidence or logical reasoning beyond "well freaking duh Sherlock."

 

Yes I'm sure that's how religions come into existance and become entrenched: some guy walks up and makes a statement as to the fantastic claims of something attributable to a supernatural or otherworldly being that is supposedly in charge or responsible for the world around us and people immediately drop their skepticism and accept these claims for some unacknowledged reason.

 

Cmon. No religion I'm aware of has ever lacked for a great deal of growing pains, skeptics, "haters" etc etc. In fact it's all the rage nowdays. It's very "hip" not just to be agnostic or atheist, but to be theist (esp Christian) haters.

 

I can't speak to anything about being a "hater" being the rage. I can say that those who defend their religion do so without actually engaging in discourse as to the validity of of the underlying principals of that religion. Much like you did above, the question of the existence of a god, or of Jesus performing miracles or of Muhammad riding a horse up into the heavens is taken as fact and not actually open for discussion.

 

Moreover, being a member of one of these religious groups does fulfill some needs with us. Certainly, humans as a whole are far more group oriented than individual (I say herd animal but that is another discussion entirely). We also have strangely tied much of our system of ethics and morality into these religious systems. However, I would also argue that these human needs that are filled by these religious institutions could just as easily be met by other social institutions or systems that aren't founded upon a self rationalizing statement such as the existence of a god.

 

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Once again you're trying to apply some kind of "scientific method" to something for which that is N/A. You either don't get it or refuse to acknowledge it, but whatever. I certainly don't think that wishing for something makes it real.

 

Then please describe how believing in something without any evidence to support the existence of that something is different from wishing for it.

 

Oh and just so that we are clear here, I am not applying a "scientific method", I am applying "logic and reasoning" which is something quite different altogether.

 

Interesting that you keep saying "we," which would include you. Freudian slip? Closet theist?

 

Sorry for including myself as a member of this society and of the human species in general, but yes I should have chosen my words better.

 

Can we dispense with the pointless oversimplifications and generalizations now?

 

Not until you're ready to even entertain the idea that you could be wrong.

 

Some people accept blindly, but many do not. In fact, I would confidently bet the house that very few theists never seriously question their beliefs. Can't help but wonder what that percentage is for athests.

 

I can't supply a number any more than you can but I think the answer is dependent upon whether the atheist was never exposed to religion or whether the atheist chose to step away from some religious system they were indoctrinated into.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Kid Cid

[detlef]

Sure, although that is true regardless of where one's morality comes from.

 

No argument there; I'm all for seperation of church and state.

 

 

As for your (anecdotal) evidence, it is only that, although a potentially significant one. Obviously they cannot simply overturn Roe vs Wade, but that's probably best to have in its own thread.....

 

PS who says fringe whackos aren't peppered throughout NC gubmint? I've been there enough and just based on the roads/signs alone I felt it was pretty whacked. Course that might just be NCDOT, but Besides, this is gubmint we're talking about.

Here's the issue. For those of us who don't subscribe to religion, the entire notion is seen as a form of "state". It's just a state without physical boundaries. But, I see the bible no different than any other document who's intent is to govern people. Because, it is written by men and the aim is to define what is and isn't right.

 

So, you've got two groups you have to align yourself with, even if you don't actually agree with everything they say. The US is the obvious one. You may not like everything we do but, you're an American so you include yourself among us and lend credence to everything we do. But you do the same thing with Christianity. And, whether you're a zealot or just some dude who goes to church each Sunday, you're counted among the ranks. And that inclusion means their numbers are big enough to give them a lot of power. And that matters. Because there have been some horrible things done by the church that would get a small cult squashed like a bug. But it's the Catholic church so the Pope can say, "Eff you, I'm the mother-effing Pope. So, even though my personal priest is damned lunatic who spews vile crap and lies trivializes one of the biggest atrocities in the history of humanity by comparing it to cops wanting to talk to his boss regarding some pretty damning evidence, you can all suck it, because I'm the mother effing Pope."

 

Which, btw, is the only way anyone who isn't brain-washed can see how they reacted to the bold assertion that the church shouldn't be held above the law. I'm sorry, but that's the facts. The Pope may not be guilty of being an accomplice to child molestation, but he is absolutely guilty of thinking he's above being questioned on certain instances where he may or may not have obstructed justice. Which is against the law. For you, for me, and the mother effing Pope.

 

And if that was Koresh, we'd stampede the Vatican and blow him away. But, because there's a bunch of people who like enough about what the church stands for, he gets a free pass. Hell, if that was the POTUS, we'd run his ass out of town in a second. But it's the mother effing Pope, so we can suck it like an alter boy.

Edited May 18, 2011 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Here's the issue. For those of us who don't subscribe to religion, the entire notion is seen as a form of "state". It's just a state without physical boundaries. But, I see the bible no different than any other document who's intent is to govern people. Because, it is written by men and the aim is to define what is and isn't right.

 

wha?

 

gotta be one of the dumber things you have ever written.

[Yukon Cornelius]

wha?

 

gotta be one of the dumber things you have ever written.

so what is the bible then if it not something written to govern men....

[detlef]

so what is the bible then if it not something written to govern men....

exactly. The difference between it and any constitution-like document is that it has cool stories to explain the rules.

[Azazello1313]

according to this utterly moronic reasoning, any self-help tome at my local book store is "a form of 'state'"

[detlef]

according to this utterly moronic reasoning, any self-help tome at my local book store is "a form of 'state'"

Even for you, that is an astounding stretch. For how many centuries was the church the single most important "government" in the world? Sure, there were kings and such, but all of them ruled at the mercy of the chruch. So, is my assertion truly out of the blue? Or are you even more full of crap than usual. Because nothing in that paragraph you quoted and questioned is even unique. It's the freaking battle cry for basically everyone who's not into the bible. It's been said so many times, it's almost trite.

 

And yet somehow, an otherwise intelligent person like you is stunned by it?

 

Seriously, the only thing in question is whether or not the bible is an invention of man or handed down from above. But does anyone question that the church has power? Hell, Luxembourg is a state. Line them both up. The Catholic Church vs Luxembourg. Who wins?

[Kid Cid]

Even for you, that is an astounding stretch. For how many centuries was the church the single most important "government" in the world? Sure, there were kings and such, but all of them ruled at the mercy of the chruch. So, is my assertion truly out of the blue? Or are you even more full of crap than usual. Because nothing in that paragraph you quoted and questioned is even unique. It's the freaking battle cry for basically everyone who's not into the bible. It's been said so many times, it's almost trite.

 

And yet somehow, an otherwise intelligent person like you is stunned by it?

 

Seriously, the only thing in question is whether or not the bible is an invention of man or handed down from above. But does anyone question that the church has power? Hell, Luxembourg is a state. Line them both up. The Catholic Church vs Luxembourg. Who wins?

It is much more obvious when Islam is substituted for Catholicism. In the Koran there is no differentiation between political, military or religious goals. Once a piece of land has been brought into Islam, it is forever fought for as theirs. Once a mind has been brought to a point where the individual thinks of themselves as a Muslim, that person is forever thought of as a member of Islam, even if for just a few hours.

[Furd]

Neither "side" can prove/disprove the existance of God . . .

 

God is entirely beyond being scientifically proven.

 

Well, I don't know if it will prove anything, but it seems that an all powerful being could at least whip up some burning bushes or something. Like what happened back in the day.

 

And while it doesn't disprove anything, the fact that there aren't any burning bushes or other earthly manifestations of a divine being at least requires some explanation. (If one can travel through time, why haven't we seen any time travelers?)

 

My $.02 is that, for whatever reason, some people want and/or need to believe in a divine being of some sort whilst others don't have those same wants and/or needs. If you have that want or need, you'll find some way to justify it. And if you don't have that want or need, you may want to justify it.

 

Me? I'd love to believe. I have had hours of conversation with a very good friend of mine who is a bishop in the (insert a large religious denomination) church. I can see the allure of it. But I just can't believe in something intangible that I don't understand that cannot be explained.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Furd

[Azazello1313]

so what is the bible then if it not something written to govern men....

 

umm, it's a collection of writings that attempts to tell the story of the interaction between man and god. is it some sort of "religious constitution"? well, there are small parts of it you could maybe classify that way (like, say, Leviticus), and sure it asserts a certain moral foundation.

 

but I think anyone with any sense whatsoever can see the clear difference between, on the one handthe bible or any other moralizing work with "rules" (plato, marx, john locke, kant, rousseau, to name just a few) and a government constitution. one is written to persuade, the other is written as a basis to coerce.

 

now, often times, christians, and followers of every other moral persuasion, try to blur those lines and impose whatever moral dictates their system of ethics suggests onto others via the coercive force of the state. I am as opposed to this as anyone, whether the moralizers are christians, muslims, or anti-happymeal crusaders. I think the virtue of living in a free society is that everyone can pursue the moral dictates they find intellectually or emotionally compelling, rather than the ones the sitting government decides to compel by threat of force. the bible itself makes this argument in many ways, in many places (see, e.g., paul's letter to the romans).

 

it is quite a preposterous strawman to argue that anyone who reads one particular book or subscribes to a particular moral framework is, per se, attempting to "govern" others. particularly when that book and that moral framework specifically hold up free will, and specifically challenge the notion of justification by following "rules".

[detlef]

Azz, again, it astounds me that you find this line of reasoning so incredible. I can understand that one could look at the bible and simply see it is as a discourse on the relation between man and god. That's one thing. But to wholesale dismiss the notion as ludicrous that it could be a tome to govern man using parables and antecdotes is bold to say the least. Again, even if it's true. Even if god exists and exists as defined and described in the bible, does not, in and of itself, dismiss the notion that the bible is a tool to govern man.

 

Smarter and more learned men than either of us have made that point and made it well.

 

And, just to be clear, I am not implying that the bible is a tool to govern all men. Mind you, neither is the constitution. The constitution is a tool to govern all those who choose to call themselves citizens of the US. The bible is a tool to govern all those who align themselves as such. This is not to imply any sinister motives. But rather, that it establishes a framework of rules that one must live by to be a citizen of this border-less "state".

 

And, no, it's not like any random self-help tome. It's a freaking state. It's a body of people who wield significant influence on world policy. Less now than centuries ago, but significant none-the-less. Think of how many official states would happily trade place with the Catholic church in terms of how big a stick they wield on the international stage?

Edited May 18, 2011 by detlef

[Hugh B Tool]

I admire people whom have faith in their particular religions. It is when they bring dogma into the whole equation(which happens more often than not) that they lose me totally. And no matter what God or religion you may have faith in, it is just that, faith. Now the million dollar question has to be, is blind faith logical? As science is pretty much based on pure logic.