The "Afterlife is a Fairy Story"

[Azazello1313]

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

 

the absurd point you're making (or were a few posts back)? no. no, they haven't.

 

CAN it be "used as a tool to govern"? yeah. so can anything. HAS it been "used as a tool to govern"? absolutely. smart and learned men have indeed made compelling points to that effect.

 

to be perfectly clear, the points you have made that are totally dumb and indefensible are:

- religion is just "a form of 'state' without boundaries", and

- the bible is "document who's (sic) intent is to govern people"

[Square]

I might have proof that there is a god. And that he hates me.

[detlef]

the absurd point you're making (or were a few posts back)? no. no, they haven't.

 

CAN it be "used as a tool to govern"? yeah. so can anything. HAS it been "used as a tool to govern"? absolutely. smart and learned men have indeed made compelling points to that effect.

 

to be perfectly clear, the points you have made that are totally dumb and indefensible are:

- religion is just "a form of 'state' without boundaries", and

- the bible is "document who's (sic) intent is to govern people"

I guess it's a matter of distinction. That when, literally, for centuries upon centuries, religion is used as a tool to govern men (across borders and, in many cases, trumps actual government) I'm prepared to see that as more than simply a token situation where religion "can" be a tool to govern, but rather, overwhelming evidence that it is done so on an enormous and institutional level. Large enough to not be dismissed as, "well, any random self-help book can be the basis for government".

 

It's a freaking rule book, plain and simple. The only question is whether it is truly of divine nature or of human construct.

Edited May 18, 2011 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

the writings of hegel and nietzsche were used by the nazis as "tools to govern". does that make philosophy "a form of 'state' without boundaries"? does it reduce their writings to "documents whose intent is to govern people"? it's kind of an absurd question, isn't it?

[Azazello1313]

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.

 

that is a good point. all ideologies can be twisted to serve the aims of would-be rulers. but some require less twisting than others.

[detlef]

the writings of hegel and nietzsche were used by the nazis as "tools to govern". does that make philosophy "a form of 'state' without boundaries"? does it reduce their writings to "documents whose intent is to govern people"? it's kind of an absurd question, isn't it?

Again, it's a matter of distinction. You're mentioning the Nazis using the writings of philosophers as rationale for their government policies. I'm talking about the church being the single most powerful political force in the western world for centuries and, to a pretty large degree in many parts of the world today. That is a massive, massive difference between some fascist group with a 10 year run a half century ago drawing inspiration from the teachings of some philosophers. Those philosophies do not have a political hierarchy like the Catholic Church does.

 

Now, and as I said before, perhaps you see the bible as simply a book that discusses the relationship between man and god. And that's fine. And it may be right. But there is far too much evidence that it is a tool to govern to completely dismiss the notion as you have done. Power corrupts and the temptation of unquestioned power through divine authority is massive. And, well, there's example upon example of very high profile and mainstream men using the bible as exactly a tool to rule men, to just say, out right, that anyone who sees it as a tool is "dumb". BECAUSE IT KEEPS FREAKING HAPPENING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! So, as someone who is not blinded by devotion, I owe it to myself to see it at face value. And that face value includes the influence the church, not just the bible, but the church and the men at the top of that church have.

 

And it's pretty damned hard to draw much distinction between an influential body of men who all work within a given set of rules and uphold an agenda as really any different than a state without boundaries.

[BeeR]

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.

it's sort of important that you're a good person, but absolutely a deal breaker if you don't join the club.

For some religions/denominations, this is true, not so for others. Another example of why lumping all religions/etc together is pointless, makes no sense and is IMO an intellectual cop out. PS I am not saying either of you are doing that per se; in fact, I would be surprised if you are as you seem to give it more thought and objectivity than that.

[Azazello1313]

det, if we were having this discussion 500 years ago, you might have a point with all your harping about the catholic church and its power. but, funny thing happened in the last 500 years....first there was this thing called "the reformation", where a bunch of people USED the bible to expose and undermine those relationships between religion and power. then there was the enlightenment, and the liberal political movement that followed, resulting in governments separated from religion and religious institutions explicitly rejecting any kind of authoritarian structure, even internally. you are attributing to christianity as a whole views that have been emphatically and explicitly rejected by the vast majority of actual christians for centuries.

 

as for the bible itself, your argument bespeaks a powerful ignorance. the bible says to abide the worldly powers (government), but do not put any faith in them. they are inherently separate from and antithetical to the divine kingdom. the coercive power of kings and states is corrupting and unholy. that is the clear message of the entire new testament with respect to "governing". I am thinking someone put a piece of tape with the words "the bible" on the binding of your copy of machiavelli.

[Rovers]

Laws of society have always been "morally based", and those moral values have most often been rooted in religious beliefs, and for the most part, fairly unbiased morals, with the notable exception of muslim values that allow for mutilation and degradation of women. While this country claims a seperation of church and state, the laws are clearly based on chirstian values. Our constitution was written by protestasnts from europe. Those values still are the predominant influence on our laws.

 

Detlef wants to "blame" the Catholic church for problems, but it's actually the various protestant christian groups that wrote the laws in this country. Sometimes it's just too easy to base opinion on bias, in this case, the Catholics. In fact, Catholics have been repressed in the US, and that bias remains, as it is to this day by people like detlef. It's an easy target. For the biased with some sort of ax to grind. To this day, only one Catholic president has ever been elected, and JFK hardly imposed Catholic morals onto his presiidtentiial legacy.

 

Even the Masons won't admit a catholic into their circle, and the masons have had power in this country since day one. Hatred of catholics and catholisism is fear based. Sad, I thought detlef was more enlightned than this.

[BeeR]

Actually, I get the point very well.

No, clearly you don't, as you once again demonstrated right after saying this by following up with: "At no time do you actually have to provide any factual evidence...." As for my "freaking duh Sherlock" remark, that's obviously not an attempt at logical reasoning so I've no idea why you would try to spin it that way; it is only restating what I've stated several times but you're still not getting, but I'm sure you would again say you are, so we might as well drop this part of the discussion.....

 

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

You can say that all you want, but you'd be wrong. In fact it should be pretty obvious to anyone paying attention how absurd that is, given how extreme/absolute it is.

 

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.

...and again. Do you really believe that people of varying faiths and beliefs don't discuss and/or question them on a regular basis? Again, sure, some do just blindly accept, but many do not.

 

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.

Sound enough reasoning.....but if that were true, I suspect they'd already be in place and thriving and religions, which are more demanding in terms of beliefs/etc, would have faded. Yet that hasn't exactly happened.

[BeeR]

(cont'd...fn quote limit BS)

 

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

Because wishing for something implies it does not exist and/or you don't have it. I needn't "wish" for God's existance because I already believe He does.

 

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.

Now you're splitting hairs. No of course they are not exactly the same thing, but the scientific method employs logic and reasoning and the thought process is much the same. And if your logic and reasoning would accept evidence other than scientific, I'd be curious to know more about that.

 

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.

I was kidding. Note the little winky smiley face and everything.

 

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

Apparently you missed the part where I said "I would confidently bet the house that very few theists never seriously question their beliefs." I include myself in that group FYI. I make no claims to having it all figured out to say the least.

 

You?

[BeeR]

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

I think you know better than that.

 

 

Even for you, that is an astounding stretch. For how many centuries was the church the single most important "government" in the world?

er "the church" does not equal "the Bible." Wow how quickly you jumped the track into a blatantly flawed line of reasoning.

[BeeR]

But I just can't believe in something intangible that I don't understand that cannot be explained.

So you don't believe Al Davis exists?

[detlef]

Detlef wants to "blame" the Catholic church for problems, but it's actually the various protestant christian groups that wrote the laws in this country. Sometimes it's just too easy to base opinion on bias, in this case, the Catholics. In fact, Catholics have been repressed in the US, and that bias remains, as it is to this day by people like detlef. It's an easy target. For the biased with some sort of ax to grind. To this day, only one Catholic president has ever been elected, and JFK hardly imposed Catholic morals onto his presiidtentiial legacy.

Oh boo, freaking hoo. Poor, poor Catholics. All they've done is fail to bring child molesting priests to justice and hide behind the church when damning evidence goes all the way to the top. Stooping so low as to compare demanding Bishops and the Pope to answer questions about them possibly knowing about some of these atrocities and turning a blind eye to the holocaust? Are you freaking kidding me? And again, this is not some fringe whack jobs practicing religious quackery in the name of the church. This is the effing Pope's personal preacher!

 

Sorry, but that crap stinks and majorly so. And, yes, makes them a very, very "easy target".

 

You have two choices. Circle the wagons and play the victim card, or wake the hell up and realize that your church is failing you and demand better from it's leaders. Sucks for you that you've taken the cowardly way out. Because this is not about me being some mean guy with an agenda to throw dirt on your church. This is me saying, "Hey look, your church is covered in dirt. Dirt that it effing put there itself."

[Double Agent]

I've made my beliefs public here and I'm not going to rehash. But what about people that die and experience things while they are technically dead. Is it a dream? If the brain is dead how can it dream? Do they think they dreamed something? If they are telling the truth this aspect has always stifled me. And I know an agnostic who died...saw things...and was converted.

[bpwallace49]

 

I for one find this discussion very enlightening . . . . canya guys TRY to not get it gunned? Please?

[Azazello1313]

Oh boo, freaking hoo. Poor, poor Catholics. All they've done is fail to bring child molesting priests to justice and hide behind the church when damning evidence goes all the way to the top. Stooping so low as to compare demanding Bishops and the Pope to answer questions about them possibly knowing about some of these atrocities and turning a blind eye to the holocaust? Are you freaking kidding me? And again, this is not some fringe whack jobs practicing religious quackery in the name of the church. This is the effing Pope's personal preacher!

 

Sorry, but that crap stinks and majorly so. And, yes, makes them a very, very "easy target".

 

You have two choices. Circle the wagons and play the victim card, or wake the hell up and realize that your church is failing you and demand better from it's leaders. Sucks for you that you've taken the cowardly way out. Because this is not about me being some mean guy with an agenda to throw dirt on your church. This is me saying, "Hey look, your church is covered in dirt. Dirt that it effing put there itself."

 

I think his point, in response to you, was that the catholic church has been completely outside the political power structure in this country since day one, and pretty much everywhere else as well for centuries. that you responded instead with your tried and true knee-jerk, non sequitur molestation rant isn't really surprising.

[Chavez]

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

Don't worry, it will only feel like an eternity.

[Chavez]

....then there was the enlightenment, and the liberal political movement that followed, resulting in governments separated from religion and religious institutions explicitly rejecting any kind of authoritarian structure, even internally. you are attributing to christianity as a whole views that have been emphatically and explicitly rejected by the vast majority of actual christians for centuries.

 

 

Yes, all I hear about from a vocal chunk of right-wing US Christians is how church should remain separate from state.

[Chavez]

I've made my beliefs public here and I'm not going to rehash. But what about people that die and experience things while they are technically dead. Is it a dream? If the brain is dead how can it dream? Do they think they dreamed something? If they are telling the truth this aspect has always stifled me. And I know an agnostic who died...saw things...and was converted.

 

 

Hmm, funny thing about the bolded - I know a guy who was dead on the table ater a brain aneurysm and saw NOTHING. Hence he is an atheist.

[Furd]

I've made my beliefs public here and I'm not going to rehash. But what about people that die and experience things while they are technically dead. Is it a dream? If the brain is dead how can it dream? Do they think they dreamed something? If they are telling the truth this aspect has always stifled me. And I know an agnostic who died...saw things...and was converted.

 

 

This falls under the "we can't explain it so it must mean that there is a god" scenario.

 

There are a lot of questions in this regard. When are you "technically" dead? Is it the moment the heart stops beating? Or the moment when oxygen fails to arrive at the brain? Or maybe its when all electrical activity in the brain ceases? But when is that? Does some residual activity occur after that point?

 

Why does a chicken run around after its head has been lopped off? Has it been possessed by a spirit?

 

How come we don't hear some horror stories about fire and brimstone when evil doers die? Does the devil not welcome the souls to his domain like god does?

 

Why doesn't everyone who comes back from a "near death" experience report the same thing?

 

Why do "conversions" so often occur at or just after some tumultous or memorable event? Why not while someone is sitting on the couch looking at the television. Or perhaps while simply walking on the road to Damascus. (Wait, the latter may have occurred, depending on who you believe.)

 

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. I just don't understand how the point that you raise can lead to a conclusion that a god exists.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Furd

[detlef]

I think his point, in response to you, was that the catholic church has been completely outside the political power structure in this country since day one, and pretty much everywhere else as well for centuries. that you responded instead with your tried and true knee-jerk, non sequitur molestation rant isn't really surprising.

Oh, I think he went further than that, talking about "people like detlef" and our anti-Catholic axes to grind. I simply wanted to explain why "people like me" have an axe to grind with his church. I don't know why Catholics have been chight on in this country for so long. Maybe it's because they didn't seem any more interested in distancing themselves from the mafia for some time than they have been of late with pedophiles? Just speculating.

 

But, yeah, I'm sure my anti-pedophile act must get sort of old. Sorry about that. I guess it just sort of sits with me the wrong way, having people support a group as corrupt as that Church, giving money to them. Much of which goes into a warchest to protect pedophiles from "persecution". I should lighten up a bit. Maybe some of the boys enjoyed it.

 

As far as the Catholic church being less powerful in this country than other Christian branches, that doesn't actually do anything to disprove the fact that the church is basically a state without borders. Being a state without borders doesn't mean that you have to be the single most powerful group in the world, it simply means that you have to essentially act like a state bust simply aren't defined by physical borders. And, really, that in and of itself is not even a bad thing.

 

But it's got a very defined power structure and hierarchy , it's got a book that has a lot of rules in it. It does business with some very shady people for the sake of power and influence, and it's people stick up for one another. Oh, and this organization is older than most other states in this world. Not, the just the ideology, but the whole structure. Oh and then there's this. The Vatican City is a SOVEREIGN-EFFING-STATE! So, you've got this group with branches set up all over the world, who's got a ton of money and a lot of rules, who, at one point, was the single most powerful organization in the western world and now still does wield some significant (albeit far less than before) influence in world policy, and their headquarters are located in an area that is recognized as it's own country. But only an idiot would dare compare that to a state without borders.

 

Regardless, back to your point. Just so I have it straight. Because the Catholic church has less power now than it had in the past. Because that is because of people's interpretation of the bible evolving, is supposed to dispel the notion of what it's initial intentions were? It just shows that its power is waning. But let's not pretend the power is gone. You want to say it's no more powerful than a philosophy club? OK, let's say there's a trail of evidence in a child molestation scandal that leads right to the head of that club. So, the cops want to talk to him. How much luck do you think he'll have playing the "Do you know who I am?" card.

 

Guessing the response goes something like, "Well, unless you're the Pope, you're going to have to come with us."

Edited May 19, 2011 by detlef

[Yukon Cornelius]

Yes, all I hear about from a vocal chunk of right-wing US Christians is how church should remain separate from state.

[Kid Cid]

The is only one person I know of, well actually many of us know him as he's a member here but doesn't visit much anymore (Thews), who has actually claimed to have died and had some type of enlightening experience. That is the only first hand evidence that we have and unfortunately having this discussion with him is an exercise in frustration simply because he has a whole bunch of other stuff that he feels compelled to drag into things.

 

Therefore, we can only go on the second and third hand information that many of us have encountered. It seems that it is anecdotal at best. One thing we can say for certain is that there is no physical evidence that any type of afterlife exists. We can say with relative certainty that some people have made the claims of experiential evidence for the existence of an afterlife, but we have no corroboration between the experiences other than the mention of bright lights in some but not all of the instances. This is certainly not enough evidence to positively identify the existence of an afterlife or not.

 

However, if we look at the where we get the notion of an afterlife, it's in the books. Whether it is in the Bible or the Koran, Jews, Christians and Muslims all ascribe to the notion of life after death within the space of their respective god or not. Yet I find it interesting that both books speak of heaven in very earthly terms. According to the Koran, In addition to the 72 virgins, those that die in his service are now seated at the right hand of God amid "rivers of purest water, and rivers of milk forever fresh; rivers of wine delectable to those that drink it, and rivers of clearest honey" (47:15). The Bible isn't far from this description either, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Revelation 22:1-3)

 

To me, this sounds much more like men struggling to stretch their imaginations and describe the most exciting, joyous, wonderful thing they can come up with based on their very earthly experiences rather than someone with first hand knowledge of what it means to actually be there.

 

In essence we have once again reached the point where the believers can only resort to the godly cop out, the books were written with divine inspiration, therefore the words contained within must be accurate. The books themselves are infallible. Because quite simply, there is no other space left for them to argue their point from. With this as the sum total of their body of evidence as to the existence of the afterlife (and to be sure, there are many other references to the afterlife in these books, I only use these references as an example. However, none of the other references bring with them any greater evidence) sane, rational people can only conclude that at best, we have no reason to believe the claims of an afterlife.

 

Now, one can argue that the concept of an afterlife has not been refuted here and lets face it, none of use are actually looking forward to death (except maybe the Muslim martyrs) and the idea of going on to something else can be very appealing and consoling. So I guess you can say that you can keep hope alive. But realistically, there are no real reasons to continue believing in the concept of an afterlife other than as a balm to assuage our fears of death.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Kid Cid

[Deathpig]

Can't help but toss out a few thoughts here:

 

1) Catholics != Christianity. As much fun as it is to lump them all together, oddly enough many sects of Christianity don't really like each other, and much like the Judean Peoples' Front, Catholics are pretty much universally hated by them all.

2) The Bible, as a 'rule book for stateless sovereign nations', does more to spell out the rules for Judaism than for any branch of Christianity. In fact, Catholics probably have the fewest rules originating in the Bible than any sect of any Western religion.

3) Detlef must REALLY hate English Monarchs, because they too used to wield considerable power that stretched around the globe, are the leaders of their own sect of Christianity, have a history of corrupt behavior, and still retain a fancy title and sovereign nation.