My Answer to - No Atheists in Fox Holes

[Underseer]

There must be variable reasons to your narrow suggestion for a various number of people. Is this your summing of the total for people fighting for life?

I (no doubt others here too) have been at the bedside to close relatives who have not long to go. All of them that I've been with have accepted that death will be upon them shortly. No fear .. some with tears with thoughts that they would be leaving their loved ones behind in a harsh world.

I would myself stay alive as long as possible to make sure /to guide my youngens with my experiences against the bad things I've come across (I doubt they would remember from a previous life to guide them, so to speak). Including not being an idiot like I used to be (once or twice just escaping perilous situations).

Another example; an elderly woman I saw on a doc with hidden camera filming this person having NO family was a typical in cases like this across the world- who was simply tired of life through loneliness , mistreatment - the pains of just existing and so on. There are, not forgetting; even some people who have lived long lives having done everything they wanted who is content to be ready when the time comes.

Anyway this particular person I could not forget who had a fairly sound mind with clear understanding of her situation was shouting to nurses "kill me kill me" - it wasn't mentioned if she was a theist or not but it knocked me for seven with sadness and the anger I felt of mistreatment.

So ...what does this poor woman who wished to die come back as in reincarnation? A fox for tally-ho hunting games?

You wrote a lot, and made paragraphs, but unfortunately, there is not much logical or rational connection between them. Most importantly, there is no substantive rebuttle to what I wrote.

My point is, simply: Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value. ie: monogamy is a GOOD idea. The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated: GOOD idea. Honor your mother and father. Hey, can any progressive liberal argue with that?

etc, etc.

If you don't understand why monogamy is a good idea, then you won't make good decisions about it, and you can't actually say that it is good.

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good.

Faith is accepting conclusions without evidence or reason. It is not meaning, but the illusion of meaning. If you want to make better decisions, you need the real thing.

 

[sharon45]

I got the message a while ago, yet you keep saying about the same form letter again, and again, as though either we have never communicated before, or I am supposed to be considered quite dense.

You seem to be quite dense, to me, But that's just me. I think it's a matter of language, semantics, the absence of body language. In other words: I DO NOT really think you are "dense". I believe there is a communication breakdown (Zep reference quite intentional).

It is going to merely seem that way, because I am mainly talking about things that are very uncommon with no easy copy and paste-in phrases to use.

 

[sharon45]

You have exposed me. It has been frustrating and perhaps too hasty trying to communicate to the poster. Well if having no logical or rational connection between ... this may have been worse and unintelligible if there had been no paragraphs, I dread to think. I'll take it as good advice to consider from now on.

For what it's worth, I understand what you're talking about, even if I don't agree.

 

[sharon45]

I've always known that the religious are using a straw man with this foolish foxhole business, but the opposition trying to fling it right back doesn't look so hot either. The Bible doesn't really say anything of the sort on a general sense about that god asking people to actually want to die, or to make it easy to die. In the OT, there is no mention of people going to Heaven, and it talks about the amount of time needed for grieving, just that stupid Jesus might as well had passed off everyone as being like Lazarus or himself.

OT perhaps not but then not all of the books were included. The book of Enoch predates the OT and mentions heaven and hell which means: The concept was not thought up by Christians!

Well, once we get into that rat hole of what books weren't used, there are some rather unsavory ones left out of the NT as well. The point is, if the OT contained Hell, it wouldn't be consistent enough with the other writings.

 

[sharon45]

To me, the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a confession that acceptance of religious truth claims comes from reason-destroying fear rather than careful consideration of the facts.

Yes, fear is practically the religion's most powerful force to control people.

 

[WAB]

You wrote a lot, and made paragraphs, but unfortunately, there is not much logical or rational connection between them. Most importantly, there is no substantive rebuttle to what I wrote.

My point is, simply: Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value. ie: monogamy is a GOOD idea. The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated: GOOD idea. Honor your mother and father. Hey, can any progressive liberal argue with that?

etc, etc.

If you don't understand why monogamy is a good idea, then you won't make good decisions about it, and you can't actually say that it is good.

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good.

Agreed.

 

[bilby]

If you don't understand why monogamy is a good idea, then you won't make good decisions about it, and you can't actually say that it is good.

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good.

Agreed.

So if you agree that the stories are of no value, why did you say "Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value"? Are you withdrawing that claim?

Or are you not aware that that's what you just agreed to?

 

[Learner]

What it seems here really, is your (plural) opinion , religious stories have no value and that ALL stories are seen as equal.

An individual with an opinion that wouldn't need him to believe in the supernatural elements of the story but take to the bits of philosophy texts, "can" be useful in the real world and having some value.

 

[sharon45]

What it seems here really, is your (plural) opinion , religious stories have no value and that ALL stories are seen as equal.

An individual with an opinion that wouldn't need him to believe in the supernatural elements of the story but take to the bits of philosophy texts, "can" be useful in the real world and having some value.

Well, one major reason why these stories can be useful, is because some of the so-called wisdom that they may contain is already being widely implemented throughout much of the world, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[WAB]

Agreed.

So if you agree that the stories are of no value, why did you say "Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value"? Are you withdrawing that claim?

Or are you not aware that that's what you just agreed to?

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

 

[bilby]

So if you agree that the stories are of no value, why did you say "Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value"? Are you withdrawing that claim?

Or are you not aware that that's what you just agreed to?

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

OK, so 'not aware' it is then.

Thanks.

 

[WAB]

And thank you, too.

 

[Juma]

So if you agree that the stories are of no value, why did you say "Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value"? Are you withdrawing that claim?

Or are you not aware that that's what you just agreed to?

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

Weird.. so you agree it is to control the masses..

 

[Underseer]

So if you agree that the stories are of no value, why did you say "Even if the religious stories are just stories, they still have a great value"? Are you withdrawing that claim?

Or are you not aware that that's what you just agreed to?

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

Do you know the difference between the right and wrong way to beat your slaves to death, William?

If you have any morals at all, then you understand that having slaves at all is extremely immoral, and that beating slaves to death would be an even greater injustice, Thus, you would be offended at the mere suggestion that there is a right and wrong way to beat slaves to death, but here you are insisting that the story has value.

Stories do not have value. If you know right from wrong, that came from you, not the Bible. The Bible gave you clear instructions on the right and wrong way to beat slaves to death. The fact that you ignore the Bible's advice proves that you are moral and it is not. To whatever degree you are moral, that did not come from the Bible.

It can't have come from the Bible. That's what the Euthyphro dilemma is all about. No authority can possibly make anyone more moral. No god, no magic book, no government, no ethics professor can make you nor anyone else more moral. Authorities can only demand obedience, not impart morality.

 

[Underseer]

By the way, you know that emotional connection you feel from certain stories?

There is neuroscience research about that.



Stories inherently have emotional power over us. That is precisely why you should not use them as a source for your understanding of truth. Use facts and arguments for that. That's what they're for. Stories are just for entertainment.

 

[Learner]

By the way, you know that emotional connection you feel from certain stories?

I know what you mean. I hear many complaints from people saying the same thing about politics. You like what you hear ... you vote them in ... then discover the stories have changed and you demand the orignal.

Just watched the vid. There probably is a good reason the mice would think there could be the "great mouse creator".

Interesting example using unseen "intelligent agents" (the humans) playing the piano or having the (intelligent designed) clock piano. The narrator must be telling us something that has a deeper meaning.

The mice would then be almost correct in the video.

There's something oooooout there.

 

[Underseer]

By the way, you know that emotional connection you feel from certain stories?

I know what you mean. I hear many complaints from people saying the same thing about politics. You like what you hear ... you vote them in ... then discover the stories have changed and you demand the orignal.

Just watched the vid. There probably is a good reason the mice would think there could be the "great mouse creator".

Interesting example using unseen "intelligent agents" (the humans) playing the piano or having the (intelligent designed) clock piano. The narrator must be telling us something that has a deeper meaning.

The mice would then be almost correct in the video.

There's something oooooout there.

What about all the other stories? Why was it only the "intelligent designer" stories that resonated with you, and not any of the other mouse stories?

You have just illustrated exactly what the video was talking about.

 

[Learner]

I was intrigued with his demonstration. Perhaps not the perspective intented by the maker of the video but "What did he think was the equivalent to discovering mysterious piano strings for humans?" I'd be curious to know.

 

[Ramaraksha]

By the way, you know that emotional connection you feel from certain stories?
There is neuroscience research about that.

Stories inherently have emotional power over us. That is precisely why you should not use them as a source for your understanding of truth. Use facts and arguments for that. That's what they're for. Stories are just for entertainment.

Nice Video but most theists simply don't care much about God - all they care about is what happens after death. A nice deity will pick them up and give them the easy good life that they want - that is what they are after, "and they lived happily ever after" - that's the true goal

 

[WAB]

Hold on a sec, bilby. Where in the hell did I agree that the stories are of "no value"?

I was agreeing with Underseer's statement which I quote below:

If you understand why it is good, then you don't need religion to tell you it is good. [Jesus said pretty much the same thing]

I agree with this because there are people who are inherently good and do not require any doctrine or set of morals or rules by which to behave.

However, I also believe that religious stories have value, great value, in fact, precisely for those people who may not be inherently good, and who need some kind of restraint/constraints on their behavior, imposed by a doctrine or set of rules.

Religion is a means of control, as you know. It does not and need not apply to people who are benevolent and good by nature (those with the law written in their hearts).

To sum up:

I agreed with Underseer that if you understand things and are rational and reasonable, and good by nature, you do not need those stories, you do not need religion.

But I also believe those stories did, and still do, have huge practical value, as a means of imposing restraint/constraints on the behavior of individuals who do not understand things, who are not rational and reasonable, and who benefit by being obliged to follow certain doctrines or laws (individuals who do not have the law written in their hearts).

I understand the confusion, as these threads can be bewildering.

Do you know the difference between the right and wrong way to beat your slaves to death, William?

If you have any morals at all, then you understand that having slaves at all is extremely immoral, and that beating slaves to death would be an even greater injustice, Thus, you would be offended at the mere suggestion that there is a right and wrong way to beat slaves to death, but here you are insisting that the story has value.

Stories do not have value. If you know right from wrong, that came from you, not the Bible. The Bible gave you clear instructions on the right and wrong way to beat slaves to death. The fact that you ignore the Bible's advice proves that you are moral and it is not. To whatever degree you are moral, that did not come from the Bible.

It can't have come from the Bible. That's what the Euthyphro dilemma is all about. No authority can possibly make anyone more moral. No god, no magic book, no government, no ethics professor can make you nor anyone else more moral. Authorities can only demand obedience, not impart morality.

I still say the old stories have value, GREAT value, for people who need the law, who do not have the law written in their hearts. Sorry, Underseer, but I'm a witness for Christ, and I will say what I have to say, come hell or high water.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.