Atheism, the discussion

[Alan Phipps]

An aside @ Chips: That reminds me a of the reported case of the bank customer who contacted his bank's local branch manager to enquire why his well-funded bank cards had stopped working. After satisfying the manager through all sorts of security checks that he was indeed who he said he was, the manager said words to the effect that 'I'm sorry Mr *****, but your accounts must remain frozen because our system says that you are deceased." (Apparently a confusion arising out of rather similar customer names.)

Obviously a clear case of a computer system having 'divine authority' that surpasses even allegedly empowered human intervention.

[Chips]

Turning a little dark there Chips. I hope it's a joke.

If in doubt, always a joke but I definitely welcome questions clarifying the meaning to clear up any doubts/confusion - apologies.
I should have included an emote maybe. I'll add an emote to hopefully remove doubt.

But they do have one part right, if you dont know about Jesus, you definitely do not go to Heaven.

Kind of bleak - babies (died in labour, before that, or before able to comprehend - unless being told is sufficient) go where?

Don't get me wrong - if God was proven, and heaven was proven, I'd adopt whatever (within reason) to avoid going to "hell" (as I understand it anyway). Then again I lived in inner city Leeds, so arguably experienced the latter - and I am risk averse, so...

[fiksal]

for further reading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed actual sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, although not the certainty, that these infants may attain heaven instead of the state of Limbo.[10]

While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory.[11][12]

Chruches and priests may have different answer than this.

If in doubt, always a joke but I definitely welcome questions clarifying the meaning to clear up any doubts/confusion - apologies.
I should have included an emote maybe. I'll add an emote to hopefully remove doubt.

Did you have a kid?

But they do have one part right, if you dont know about Jesus, you definitely do not go to Heaven.

Kind of bleak - babies (died in labour, before that, or before able to comprehend - unless being told is sufficient) go where?

Absolutely. Especially consider the previous ages, where child mortality was quite a bit higher.

Unfortunately I cant find the exact source for my reference to babies not having souls. I dont know who said it if it was ever an official Catholic position, so dont quote me on that.

But the part of not being saved from the original sin, is a real issue for the church.

There's one guy that answers this way
https://askacatholic.com/_webpostings/a ... oulsGo.cfm

The problem you pose has been debated for the past two millennia because this information has not been specifically revealed to us by God:

If every human being is born separated from God via original sin
but if they have never personally sinned
if they are not baptized, do they end up in hell for all eternity?
That conclusion seems just because of what we all did corporately in Adam: (a)
Yet it seems unfair because the individual does not choose to do anything wrong: (b)
Some theologians came up with the idea that these babies enter, not into supernatural happiness, but a kind of natural happiness called limbo. The experience not the pains of Hell but not the beatific vision of God.

John Paul II in his writings seemed to go in another direction, stating that these children are with God, prompting many Catholics to take solace that they do go to Heaven. This is probably the majority opinion today. The Spirit might make this question clearer to the Church in time; we just don't know, though we may hope in the Mercy of God.

Don't get me wrong - if God was proven, and heaven was proven, I'd adopt whatever (within reason) to avoid going to "hell" (as I understand it anyway). Then again I lived in inner city Leeds, so arguably experienced the latter - and I am risk averse, so...

I think it's not a certainty for me. Having a record of what Christian god does on daily basis and did as recorded in their book, doesnt make me want to sprint to Heaven.

[Chips]

Did you have a kid?

Don't understand the relevance, but nope.

[fiksal]

Don't understand the relevance, but nope.

I misread your joke. Carry on

[Chips]

I think it's not a certainty for me. Having a record of what Christian god does on daily basis and did as recorded in their book, doesnt make me want to sprint to Heaven.

Risk averse, I've seen Tenacious D's "Pick of Destiny"; the Devil is a randy old goat...

[berth]

Iirc unbaptised infants went to Limbo, which was kind of a subset of purgatory but I don't think this is a part of current Catholic doctrine.

I find it fascinating theologians tied themselves in knots agonising over this sort of thing - they firmly believed in a loving, benevolent God and they wanted to cover all the bases and make a coherent, consistent framework for how the world worked.

I wonder how many of them thought "Hang on, maybe it's all just tosh. Oh yeah, that simplifies matters."

[pjknibbs]

Iirc unbaptised infants went to Limbo, which was kind of a subset of purgatory but I don't think this is a part of current Catholic doctrine.

That's why Dante put "virtuous Pagans" in Limbo in the Divine Comedy--they couldn't be in Hell proper because they'd done nothing wrong apart from not believing in a religion that didn't exist when they were alive, but they couldn't be in Heaven not being Christian. Never thought it was very fair that just not knowing about Christianity would keep you out of Paradise, although I suppose the opposite point (that you can't actually be condemned to Hell if you don't know it exists) does counteract that a bit.

[berth]

Ignorance of the Law is no defence

[RegisterMe]

Preacher in the DRC goes to some rural villages to do a bit of the old "laying on of hands healing". Preacher catches ebola. Preacher returns to Goma, with a population of 1 million.

Good job religion, good job superstition, good job not believing in a science based approach.

Said preacher repeatedly gave false names when going through checkpoints, and took lots of paracetamol to keep his temperature down, all to evade being quarantined. Fine, moral and upstanding man that he obviously was, he's now dead . Oh and Goma has a population of 2m, not 1m as I said above, and is right on a very porous border with Rwanda.

[fiksal]

Ignorance of the Law is no defence

Hehe. It's not law of the people though )

Which would be my next objection if the said god would actually exist. Humans dont need a master.

Preacher in the DRC goes to some rural villages to do a bit of the old "laying on of hands healing". Preacher catches ebola. Preacher returns to Goma, with a population of 1 million.

Good job religion, good job superstition, good job not believing in a science based approach.

Said preacher repeatedly gave false names when going through checkpoints, and took lots of paracetamol to keep his temperature down, all to evade being quarantined. Fine, moral and upstanding man that he obviously was, he's now dead . Oh and Goma has a population of 2m, not 1m as I said above, and is right on a very porous border with Rwanda.

That's one crazy person

[mrbadger]

Not within his own frame of reference however. You should keep this in mind.

To him laying on of hands would have been a valid means of healing, his god was demanding he take these risks. He wasn't crazy, just mistaken in our view.

No doubt there are many people who who would consider his actions to be completely rational.

[pjknibbs]

Not within his own frame of reference however. You should keep this in mind.

To him laying on of hands would have been a valid means of healing, his god was demanding he take these risks. He wasn't crazy, just mistaken in our view.

But when he's taking high doses of paracetamol to hide his high temperature, as somebody above said he did, I think it's gone a bit dodgy. No matter how high your faith in your ability to "lay on hands" you don't risk infecting other people when you know you have something wrong yourself.

[mrbadger]

You're not wrong, but people will justify all sorts of things to themselves and their logic will seem flawless, if it's not subject to external questioning.

Since he wasn't caught at the time it wasn't.

I'm not defending him, what he did was absolutely terrible, and he acted as an infection vector, there's no doubt about that. I'm just saying he almost certainly didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

This is one of the problems with blind faith. In his case it was most certainly blind, because he wasn't acting on the basis of any facts.

[Usenko]

Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?!

[Alan Phipps]

I hope the 'accident' was not too traumatic (so not an 'Act of God' incident), but welcome back anyway!

[fiksal]

Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?!

Good day to you, sir


EDIT: wait I was kind of expecting a longer reply

[Grim Lock]

So i guess i'll chime in with a known brain teaser.

So if one believes a certain religous doctrine, one knows that they have behave a certain way and mind certain rules to get into heaven, if they don't they go to hell (in a nutshell), what value do any of the "good deeds" or not breaking any "cardinal rules" if it is done for the biggest reward humanly possible (eternal bliss) or to avoid the biggest punishment (eternal punishment), What moral value does anything actually have? It's seems to me it's gonna be very hard for people living in that doctrine to simply be good cuz it's the right thing to do?

So probably didn't write that out as good as i could have, but it hink you all know what i mean, im genuinely curious on your thoughts.

[Ketraar]

Yes its a thing I'm intrigued a lot myself and from what I gather from own experience, people seldom do the right thing just because its the right thing to do. Most people I come across will ingore the right thing if there is short term benefit, be it direct or indirect. Many more will only do the right thing out of fear, be it legal or religious penalty.

Even making up excuses to justify not doing the morally right is very popular, people will go far, such as twist reality, lie to themselves and others, to make up grounds for their misconduct. Hypocrisy is strong in most of us, but many are oblivious to it, both intentionally and not. I think our selfish nature requires effort to not give in to do the easy part and more often then not, doing the right thing will make you stand out from the crowd, since what people hate more then anything is being called out on their hypocrisy and "wake them up" from the twisted reality.

I hope this was in line as to what you pointed out, if not I apologize for having misread it and call it a rant.

MFG

Ketraar

[Observe]

Suppose ones religion teaches that you will go to hell if you cut your arm off. Do you say to yourself "I guess I better not cut my arm off, because my religion tells me I will go to hell if I do so"? No. How about my religion tells me I will go to heaven if I regularly nourish my body with food. Would I starve to death if not for my religion? No.

Same with morality, ethics, compassion etc. How we conduct ourselves is mostly dependent on what kind of person we are - irrespective of religious or legal dictate. Generally, we like to like ourselves. Sometimes we do bad things because we hate ourselves, or we hate ourselves for doing bad things. It can be a vicious or it can be a virtuous cycle.

Anyway, regardless of laws, we know what is right and wrong. Such knowing is built into our common DNA and has been custom designed for the human social animal. Our moralities are build around the pragmatic realities that give us the best chance to 'live long and prosper'.