Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

[Ramaraksha]

An eternal social security arrangement if you will. Yes if everything in heaven is immaterial how would anything "work"? I find the concept of never-ending as paradise a bit perplexing. Even with a great view.

Does that make sense, though? Billions of people lazy, doing nothing for eternity? And that is what God wants? "God live on earth a few years and depending on which religion you choose I will either reward you or torture you endlessly?" - how does this make any sense? But it does to billions! Amazing! Spend a useless existence indulging in self-gratification for eternity?

Sometime i have to pinch myself to make sure i am alive and in the 21st century - that we think we are so advanced, so educated and yet fall for these easy ponzi-scheme is beyond amazing!

Indeed. I find the whole thing a bit bizarre. Perhaps some see it as a kind of ethereal revenge-taking exercise. 'Those people made my life a living hell, well I believe they are going to be living in hell once they die but I'll be fine.' The concept of some ultimate ethereal justice doesn't work for me, some unknown chance of it turning out alright after some unsensed transition to somewhere/something else that noone has any experience of. Can someone experience fully this life if at least a part of them is yearning for some invisible potential future that might be "out there" or "in here" or "over there"?

Hinduism does refer to this - Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - basically one is in control of one's life, you become who you are. One is born a human being because one wanted to be. Now not so much - Life is too hard for a human being, so now one wants an easier life - zero responsibilities - some nice guy will tend to our comfort for eternity. Hinduism says if one wants that then one has to go down to a lower life form - a rock, a tree, bugs - they have care-free lives - without a brain, they don't feel much - no more pain or suffering

My sister's cat does nothing all day - just eats, poops and sleeps - zero worries - that cat is in heaven!

 

[Learner]

Hinduism does refer to this - Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - basically one is in control of one's life, you become who you are. One is born a human being because one wanted to be. Now not so much - Life is too hard for a human being, so now one wants an easier life - zero responsibilities - some nice guy will tend to our comfort for eternity.

Hmm easy life to come ..... Do you mean one (theist) would like to be lazy with zero responsibilities in the physical world before then? I dinae think ya thortet throo laddie.

Hinduism says if one wants that then one has to go down to a lower life form - a rock, a tree, bugs - they have care-free lives - without a brain, they don't feel much - no more pain or suffering

My sister's cat does nothing all day - just eats, poops and sleeps - zero worries - that cat is in heaven!

One moment the argument is as a slave .... then its like a cat doing whatever it likes .... two types of heavens maybe.

I won't be a buying your books.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Hinduism does refer to this - Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - basically one is in control of one's life, you become who you are. One is born a human being because one wanted to be. Now not so much - Life is too hard for a human being, so now one wants an easier life - zero responsibilities - some nice guy will tend to our comfort for eternity.

Hmm easy life to come ..... Do you mean one (theist) would like to be lazy with zero responsibilities in the physical world before then? I dinae think ya thortet throo laddie.

Hinduism says if one wants that then one has to go down to a lower life form - a rock, a tree, bugs - they have care-free lives - without a brain, they don't feel much - no more pain or suffering
My sister's cat does nothing all day - just eats, poops and sleeps - zero worries - that cat is in heaven!

One moment the argument is as a slave .... then its like a cat doing whatever it likes .... two types of heavens maybe.
I won't be a buying your books.

These ideas are not that hard - they make sense only if one is down to earth, rational, logical - there are no Gods, no heavens, no hell - just dreams and hopes

As for slave - that is when these religions were born when people were but slaves/subjects living under Kings and looked up to the King for a better life and religions simply made God in his image - the King will GIVE you the good life - after death but of course - it is greed for the easy good life that blinds us to this ponzi-scheme

I have asked this question over the over - what does one DO in heaven? What are the duties and responsibilities? What kind of work is available in heaven? How much does it pay? Can one live comfortably on such salaries? or is everything free? So then are billions of people not just sitting around doing nothing?

The goal - Heaven - is the easy life - no more worries, all pure joy and happiness - I believe that life and God is teaching us that life is not possible - every creature on this earth has problems - humans more than every other creature because we are blessed and cursed at the same time with a brain - we think, we wonder, we worry, we think of the what ifs - other creatures on this earth are spared these worries - they get to enjoy the here and now - Heaven - see where i am going with this?

Everything comes with a cost - Heaven comes with a cost as well

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Some might argue that heaven is a state of mind. I think that we owe it to ourselves to understand why, if we do, we subscribe to any religious belief system. They all are inventions of other people's minds, it doesn't make any difference how far back in time they originated or how amazing the claims are about where they came from. I don't feel compelled to believe anything about life or the universe - that they "are" is in itself both real and incredible.

 

[abaddon]

Any religious person who's not an atavistic throwback to centuries ago would conceive heaven as a symbolic ideal for a state of mind. There's no other possibility at all; the evidence is entirely that it's a product of the human imagination. And they'd take Jesus as a man, fictional or historical, who fills the role of a mythic hero in a symbolic tale that provides a moral template to emulate. Again, you'd have to be entirely idiotic about how human psychology is to insist the story, miracles and all, was an historic event.

This is the idiocy of religions, to insist on historic factualness instead of psychological meaningfulness. Dogmatic belief is the problem, not having a religious outlook. People believe too strongly and don't leave enough room for that thing that's essential to curiosity: doubt. "You ought to believe as I do! Hell will take you if you don't!" exclaim too many theists. "No you ought to believe as I do! Your messing up progress!" exclaim too many secularists. Religion vs Secularism is a simplistic dichotomy. Dogmatism's a problem in any "worldview". All worldviews are swiss cheese and always will be.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Any religious person who's not an atavistic throwback to centuries ago would conceive heaven as a symbolic ideal for a state of mind. There's no other possibility at all; the evidence is entirely that it's a product of the human imagination. And they'd take Jesus as a man, fictional or historical, who fills the role of a mythic hero in a symbolic tale that provides a moral template to emulate. Again, you'd have to be entirely idiotic about how human psychology is to insist the story, miracles and all, was an historic event.

This is the idiocy of religions, to insist on historic factualness instead of psychological meaningfulness. Dogmatic belief is the problem, not having a religious outlook. People believe too strongly and don't leave enough room for that thing that's essential to curiosity: doubt. "You ought to believe as I do! Hell will take you if you don't!" exclaim too many theists. "No you ought to believe as I do! Your messing up progress!" exclaim too many secularists. Religion vs Secularism is a simplistic dichotomy. Dogmatism's a problem in any "worldview". All worldviews are swiss cheese and always will be.

I don't think there are many secularists who insist that people ought to believe as they do, they simply say these are not credible stories that's all - no Atheist ever went around killing people because they didn't believe in Darwin

 

[Ramaraksha]

Some might argue that heaven is a state of mind. I think that we owe it to ourselves to understand why, if we do, we subscribe to any religious belief system. They all are inventions of other people's minds, it doesn't make any difference how far back in time they originated or how amazing the claims are about where they came from. I don't feel compelled to believe anything about life or the universe - that they "are" is in itself both real and incredible.

Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - basically saying you will be what you want, your desires will be fulfilled - not because of some magic being but because of who you are - we arrive at who we are at our present state because of the choices that we made - i could have done better financially by making better choices when i was younger - studying more, working harder - i chose not to and that was my choice - that was me

The concept of Heaven is also a choice - human life too hard, too tough - i want an easier life - no responsibilities, no worries - i want an easy life - such a life is not possible for must creatures on this planet - but if one goes lower - a tree or a bug - all worries disappear - one gets the easy life that one wants. There is a little creature called Water Bear - nothing can harm it - it can "live" in outer space, in the hottest and coldest of conditions - no responsibilities, no worries - Heaven!

We must be careful for what we wish for

 

[abaddon]

I don't think there are many secularists who insist that people ought to believe as they do, they simply say these are not credible stories that's all.

Wrong.

For those with the idea that religion is inherently dogmatic and anti-scientific, it's inevitable they'll wish religion would disappear entirely as a hindrance to progress. It's been expressed often enough in books, presentations, debates, atheist forums, so if you haven't seen it you've not been paying attention.

no Atheist ever went around killing people because they didn't believe in Darwin

Totally irrelevant even if, perhaps, it is true. I specifically avoided saying "atheists" and said "secularists" instead because there are religious atheists in the world. I was casting doubt on religion as inevitably dogmatism-riddled and a secular world as inevitably more free of it.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Some might argue that heaven is a state of mind. I think that we owe it to ourselves to understand why, if we do, we subscribe to any religious belief system. They all are inventions of other people's minds, it doesn't make any difference how far back in time they originated or how amazing the claims are about where they came from. I don't feel compelled to believe anything about life or the universe - that they "are" is in itself both real and incredible.

Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - basically saying you will be what you want, your desires will be fulfilled - not because of some magic being but because of who you are - we arrive at who we are at our present state because of the choices that we made - i could have done better financially by making better choices when i was younger - studying more, working harder - i chose not to and that was my choice - that was me

The concept of Heaven is also a choice - human life too hard, too tough - i want an easier life - no responsibilities, no worries - i want an easy life - such a life is not possible for must creatures on this planet - but if one goes lower - a tree or a bug - all worries disappear - one gets the easy life that one wants. There is a little creature called Water Bear - nothing can harm it - it can "live" in outer space, in the hottest and coldest of conditions - no responsibilities, no worries - Heaven!

We must be careful for what we wish for

I'm not convinced that one can say that if they had chosen 'x' rather than 'y' then they would have had positive outcome 'z+1' rather than the 'z' they currently have. By choosing 'x' perhaps the outcome would be 'z-1'. We just don't know. It isn't necessarily the case that everything else around us would behave in the way we expect it to had we made one choice rather than another.
I'm not sure that its possible to understand whether tardigrades have worries or not. Perhaps their existence, their experience of life, is quite awful. Or banal. Or maybe its one endless party. How would we know one way or the other? I don't see them as 'lower' or us as 'higher', its all life (I'm assuming that we aren't having a taxonomy related duscussion)

 

[remez]

I challenge the truth claims of theists because I think of theists as rational adults. Atheists who don't challenge theist truth claims are often the most condescending of all.

Thank you. And back at you.

I challenge the truth claims of atheists because I think of atheists as rational adults. Theists who don't challenge atheist truth claims are often the most condescending of all or simply not skilled enough to respond.

 

[Tigers!]

Can we please dispense with the wordplay?

What wordplay is that mate? Do you wish theists to just leave?

You are offended that atheists are allowed to present contrary views in public, and you wish more of us were like that guy who thinks of you as a toddler whose belief in Santa's Claus must be preserved.

FIFY

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

I challenge the truth claims of theists because I think of theists as rational adults. Atheists who don't challenge theist truth claims are often the most condescending of all.

Thank you. And back at you.

I challenge the truth claims of atheists because I think of atheists as rational adults. Theists who don't challenge atheist truth claims are often the most condescending of all or simply not skilled enough to respond.

Blimey. This isn't exactly taking us to the heady heights of engaging discourse is it.
Remez, your response sounds a bit borrowed and slightly exasperated/desperate. Can't you come up with something better?

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Can we please dispense with the wordplay?

What wordplay is that mate? Do you wish theists to just leave?

You are offended that atheists are allowed to present contrary views in public, and you wish more of us were like that guy who thinks of you as a toddler whose belief in Santa's Claus must be preserved.

FIFY

Does that work? I don't think atheists believe in the existence of imaginary beings once they get past about the age of about 10 and/or the point at which they come to the realisation that imaginary beings are...er....imaginary.

 

[remez]

I challenge the truth claims of theists because I think of theists as rational adults. Atheists who don't challenge theist truth claims are often the most condescending of all.

Thank you. And back at you.

I challenge the truth claims of atheists because I think of atheists as rational adults. Theists who don't challenge atheist truth claims are often the most condescending of all or simply not skilled enough to respond.

Blimey. This isn't exactly taking us to the heady heights of engaging discourse is it.
Remez, your response sounds a bit borrowed and slightly exasperated/desperate. Can't you come up with something better?

You really have issues with reading comprehension. Go find some school child to read and explain it to you. Anyone could see that I was thankful for his respect and returned the compliment within his context. I just added that there existed some on my side of the issue that are like you....CLUELESS. You're new here so understand this...... If you are going to follow me through these threads chastising me, you better pick up your game.

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

Blimey. This isn't exactly taking us to the heady heights of engaging discourse is it.
Remez, your response sounds a bit borrowed and slightly exasperated/desperate. Can't you come up with something better?

You really have issues with reading comprehension. Go find some school child to read and explain it to you. Anyone could see that I was thankful for his respect and returned the compliment within his context. I just added that there existed some on my side of the issue that are like you....CLUELESS. You're new here so understand this...... If you are going to follow me through these threads chastising me, you better pick up your game.

Actually, your post could very easily be interpreted as being condescending. Your "thank you" completely false. I'm not going to resort to personal insults because, well, its just a little bit naff. I'm new...what's your excuse? But be careful with assumptions, you know what they say. Also I don't see Underseer responding to your "chummy" post with a retort.

For someone who should be at ease with their god and existence and life in general this forum seems to be bringing out the indignance wrapped within your beliefs fairly easily.

Arguments on the basis of how long you have been posting here, an assumed authority, can be viewed in a similar light to arguments on the basis of antiquity.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not this theist. I don't spend time complaining about non-believers acting like non-believers. You are just as entitled to your beliefs or lack thereof as I am. I won't argue either; I will discuss worldviews and my viewpoint but if all you want to do is argue, I want no part of it.

So, you are opposed to argument, which means "To give the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or to explain why you believe something." That is just the kind of intellectual and emotional weakness that the guy in the video assumes is true of theists and thus makes them the same as children who believe in Santa. OTOH, it makes sense for theists to oppose reasoning and explanation since all theism is based on faith, and faith is the very definition of anti-reason. Theism is based only in the person wanting the idea to be true, and that is a rather embarrassing fact to admit, so theists oppose such discussions.

Ah - not quite. He says that calling people stupid because of their faith is not a reasonable or compassionate way to act

Not quite. He dishonestly equates any and all rational philosophical discussion about God's improbability with simply calling theists "stupid", which a strawman way of making all rational discussion about God "impolite". Ironically, most religious conservatives hate it when schools or parents won't tell kids they are wrong about various thing, but then scream about being persecuted when atheists point out that they are wrong.

since their faith does not harm you in any way.

Yet another falsehood he claims. Believe determines action, and thus impacts others. Theism has massive impact on others. It has been the primary basis on which people have been killed, tortured, and denied basic human and civil right throughout history and at this moment. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly advocates murder, genocide, wife abuse, and torture of anyone that doubts its baseless claims. Along with the Quran, the Bible and the institutions that promote them remain the primary engine in the world behind racism, sexism, and homophobia. This is not incidental or an "abuse" of religion. The values of mindless authoritarian obedience are inherent to monotheism. Worship of a God with unelected unquestionable authority whose mere will dictates what is "good" inherently promotes authoritarian social and political systems as is proven by centuries of data. Plus, the anti-rational faith that belief in God requires devalues cultural support for reason and science, leading to untold harms to everyone due to the failure to apply scientific knowledge to policy. I could go on, but you have already said you are opposed to people giving reasons and explanations, so why bother.

 

[remez]

...... Your "thank you" completely false. ...........

..... bad assumption.

But be careful with assumptions, you know what they say.

You should heed your own advice.

Also I don't see Underseer responding to your "chummy" post with a retort.

And from that you assume...................?

For someone who should be at ease with their god and existence and life in general

I am.

this forum seems to be bringing out the indignance wrapped within your beliefs fairly easily.

The stern correction you earned all on your own, don’t blame the forum.

Arguments on the basis of how long you have been posting here,

Argument no. It was a warning that you, being new, don’t know me that well. So be careful what you assume about me and start representing your worldview in a better fashion. Like you just did in your other thread, cosmology is one of my favs. Cyclic models are a mess. I’ll be along a soon as I can. Very busy.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You know, I think we have done this dance before.....

So, you are opposed to argument, which means "To give the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or to explain why you believe something." That is just the kind of intellectual and emotional weakness that the guy in the video assumes is true of theists and thus makes them the same as children who believe in Santa. OTOH, it makes sense for theists to oppose reasoning and explanation since all theism is based on faith, and faith is the very definition of anti-reason. Theism is based only in the person wanting the idea to be true, and that is a rather embarrassing fact to admit, so theists oppose such discussions.

The primary definition of argument according to the dictionary is “an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one”. I do not have any objections to an exchange of our different views and when I have the time to participate I actually enjoy the discussions – but devolving to angry retorts and insults is a waste of time so I refuse to participate in that. No one is ever swayed from their personal position by someone who just wants to scream insults. Does this make me intellectually weak? I don't think so.

Would you take seriously and listen to someone who called you stupid – a moron – an idiot? I don't. They are welcome to their viewpoint but there is no reason for me to accept their conclusions or offer them any encouragement to continue.

Not quite. He dishonestly equates any and all rational philosophical discussion about God's improbability with simply calling theists "stupid", which a strawman way of making all rational discussion about God "impolite". Ironically, most religious conservatives hate it when schools or parents won't tell kids they are wrong about various thing, but then scream about being persecuted when atheists point out that they are wrong.

I do agree that his attitude at times was rather condescending, but there were certain phrases he used which stuck with me. His exact words from part of his talk included “How lacking in compassion would I be to go up to somebody who is a believer and rub their nose in their ignorance. Look how stupid you are. What a moron. What an idiot you are to believe in God....how stupid of you.” “I've never understood atheists who go around belittling people who believe in God.”

My take on his explanation was that he was discussing atheists who spend their life denigrating every believer they ever encounter. I did not take it to mean that he was saying atheists should never disagree with a believer; if that was his intent, I think he missed his mark. His point seemed to be that atheists should not make it their life's mission to deconvert every believer. That does not mean you never disagree with someone.

Yet another falsehood he claims. Believe determines action, and thus impacts others. Theism has massive impact on others. It has been the primary basis on which people have been killed, tortured, and denied basic human and civil right throughout history and at this moment. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly advocates murder, genocide, wife abuse, and torture of anyone that doubts its baseless claims. Along with the Quran, the Bible and the institutions that promote them remain the primary engine in the world behind racism, sexism, and homophobia. This is not incidental or an "abuse" of religion. The values of mindless authoritarian obedience are inherent to monotheism. Worship of a God with unelected unquestionable authority whose mere will dictates what is "good" inherently promotes authoritarian social and political systems as is proven by centuries of data.

I disagree with your conclusions about all historical and current religions. Every religion (and atheism too!) has its adherents who demand that everyone believe as they do and will use violence to further their aims. This is not limited to religious belief. You see the same thing in the sovereign citizen movement, the tax protest movement, and racial movements. It is a human failing, not a religious issue.

Plus, the anti-rational faith that belief in God requires devalues cultural support for reason and science, leading to untold harms to everyone due to the failure to apply scientific knowledge to policy.

Again, I disagree. You are taking the most extreme right wing position in religious belief and stating it is the norm. Not the case at all in either historical or current times. The Jesuits were and are very highly regarded for their scientific advances and their promotion of education, and many of our current mathematical theories were discovered/invented by ancient Islamic scholars. On a personal note, I have many highly educated friends and acquaintances in differing faith communities who are appalled (as am I) by those of the fundamentalist persuasion who live their lives striving for a theocracy in line with their beliefs. We have no problem telling them that we strongly disagree with their viewpoints on education, government and the role of religion in public life.

I could go on, but you have already said you are opposed to people giving reasons and explanations, so why bother.

I don't remember ever saying anything like that. Can you show me where I stated I was opposed to reasons or explanations?

Ruth

 

[Ramaraksha]

I'm not convinced that one can say that if they had chosen 'x' rather than 'y' then they would have had positive outcome 'z+1' rather than the 'z' they currently have. By choosing 'x' perhaps the outcome would be 'z-1'. We just don't know. It isn't necessarily the case that everything else around us would behave in the way we expect it to had we made one choice rather than another.
I'm not sure that its possible to understand whether tardigrades have worries or not. Perhaps their existence, their experience of life, is quite awful. Or banal. Or maybe its one endless party. How would we know one way or the other? I don't see them as 'lower' or us as 'higher', its all life (I'm assuming that we aren't having a taxonomy related duscussion)

All Pain and Suffering is mental - we think of physical and mental pain but it's all the latter, there is no such thing as physical pain. Given that the Tardigrades (thanks for giving me their name) do not have a brain, they do not suffer as we do. We suffer even when things are good - we worry about our health, our loved ones health and well-being, our kids future, our future, the state of the society that we live in - "lower" forms of life are spared this pain

You are right that there are no "higher" or "lower" forms of life but for arguments sake i make this division

Heaven is an idea, a hope that one will be free of pain and suffering that accompanies human life, in fact all life - suffers one way or other, but the "lower" life forms suffer less simply because they think and feel less. And so, those headed for Heaven will find themselves reborn as Trees or bugs or pets - my sisters cat does nothing all day - just eats, poops and sleeps. That cat has zero worries - Heaven!

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

..... bad assumption.

You should heed your own advice.

Also I don't see Underseer responding to your "chummy" post with a retort.

And from that you assume...................?

For someone who should be at ease with their god and existence and life in general

I am.

this forum seems to be bringing out the indignance wrapped within your beliefs fairly easily.

The stern correction you earned all on your own, don’t blame the forum.

Arguments on the basis of how long you have been posting here,

Argument no. It was a warning that you, being new, don’t know me that well. So be careful what you assume about me and start representing your worldview in a better fashion. Like you just did in your other thread, cosmology is one of my favs. Cyclic models are a mess. I’ll be along a soon as I can. Very busy.

A warning, really? I'm not sure you realise how pompous, sanctimonious and silly that sounds. One of your favs - appeal to authority. The anger coming across in your posts indicates that you aren't quite as at home with what you arguing as you imagine you are or would like people to think you are.