Atheism, the discussion

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:47

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 13:26
From a theoretical point of view, in my opinion, disproving (or proving) the existence of God may in fact collapse society as we know it. It's a possibility.
Maybe, maybe to a deeply religious society.

But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

So then we have Iceland. Country with something like 90% of atheists. Their change was probably gradual, but nothing has collapsed
The key word is "gradual".
If change is gradual, like in Iceland or, in a less gradual way, the USSR (which is huge and underpopulated and was technically a dictatorship, so I don't know how "fine" people disliking atheism were), there is no "shock", which was in fact the cause of collapsing society in my hypotesis.
Society doesn't need to be so deeply religious or atheist to be shocked by a revelation of that kind.
What I mean is there are basically 4 situations:
1) Religious society, which discovers there is no god: that brings to panic.
2) Religious society, which discovers there is god: political establishment is going to be deprived of authority in a relevant way, because human laws are going to have less meaning. But that depends on how religious based laws are close to what actually god wanted in the first place.
3) Atheist society, which discovers there is no god: probably nothing changes.
4) Atheist society, which discovers there is god: this of course is impossible, if you know what I mean. :wink: But there's likely going to be some panic and riots. In some cases a war against god will be attempted.
5) I lied, there is a 5th scenario, involving all middle grounds: this will show some grade of mass panic. Perhaps some civil war, especially in case there is god.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 17:58

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
But I can think of already two examples. USSR was making largely atheist society, and people were fine. One could argue maybe it didn't succeed in that, since the religion has returned since.

I don't claim to know the truth behind USSR, but what you described is pretty much the same routine in Vietnam once Communist toke over. And it was just a fart.

Yes, there were a real crack down on religions on the ground of them being superstition nonsense unproductive to the society ...etc... Religious leaders were jail and made disappeared, large gathering were prohibited and thing like that. Enough that there was a period Communist and Faithless were a synonym. But that's only on the surface. As mentioned before, my mother clan have some dabbling in spiritual works and I can tell you for a fact while the Communist leaders put on a atheism face, the kind of ceremony, ritual they request to be perform behind the door on their own behalf, these guys were HARDCORE believers. The irony sometime put us on the spot to back there too. Like, given what was happening on the surface, my clan was supposed to be in a pinch, but when someone come through the door the were taken back seeing some big shots (both from civil government and military) sitting at the table sipping tea with the elder, engage in conversation with a very respected tone ... people were like "are you guys snitch?" :doh:

Ultimately, the 'purge' of religions has nothing to do with belief, it's just one of the many routines done to consolidate power and simply political. Communism by itself is a dictatorship, and as such it always look out and afraid of what can challenge its rule. Once all creditable political and military opposition were suppress, the next biggest threat is religions, so they became the target. And they are right in that regard though. Do you know the Pope in the pasts had offered to visit Vietnam, but the government denied access because they didn't want Vietnam to become the next Poland?

I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away. ;)
Last edited by Mightysword on Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:23, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?
It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist. :wink:
This reminds me of this popular idea - that there are no atheists in trenches.

Or that if you press hard enough, everyone believes in god, just doesn't know it, as not believing is impossible.
I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others. I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
Yes there are good examples of people who believe both. It's a bit unclear to me how much in supernatural they believe, as curiously none can be applied to their profession.
And I tell you, it's not that big of a deal. It's similar to the question Kestraa asked ealier how can religions hold merit when it's so flexible. Ironically, I think the two groups that concern themselves and antagonize over that kind of question are the super devout/fanatic and some atheist. To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us :gruebel:

I don't know what the astronaut think, but I would ask why would you think there gotta be a relationship about applying their faith to their profession? My guess would be ... may be they don't even think about it at all? You know, keep things separate and all that. :P

I'm actually a dual faith, in fact most Asian Buddhists are. Buddhism's adaptability is still a bit different from that of other religions, it's not much that it changes itself to appease the local, it just doesn't care if you hold several faiths at the same time. In Vietnam, that means most Buddhist also have a 2nd, our traditional folks religion. Just like if you look at Japan, most Buddhist there are also a followers of Shinto. And the things is, Buddhist and these local religions have a lot of contradictions in their belief system. And I don't mean just on small, irrelevant stuffs. Like for example, Vietnam Folk's religion belief on the afterlife is pretty much on a direct collision course of the Buddhist belief of the circle of life. And guess what ... I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all. :D


In another word, you don't have to think too hard about it. The astronaut example wasn't meant as a vindication for religion in the sense "hey even if these people can believe, that means it must be real!". The point is, out of the 7.8b people on this planet, few would stand above or can claim to be as close to science as cosmonauts. They are not simply pilots who take a craft into space, but remember they are also scientists who perform experiments in vacuum that no other scientists can do on Earth. Plus, they are the few who actually see the "Earth is round" - which some of them had described as a religious experience. (Reminder, while most of us know the Earth is round, it's still via theoretical proof and secondary images, we don't have the privilege of physically see the proof directly with our eyes). Yet, these people can still have faith. It's just to refute the notion you implied with your previous post. I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 22:11

BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:47
In some cases a war against god will be attempted.
I like that :D

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 17:58
I also challenge your notion that Russia managed to become atheism under the USSR. We know from history religion is perhaps one of the most endured element of human society, even when it's subjected to much bigger pressure than whatever the USSR did for thousands of year. Do you honestly think just a few decades of USSR rule was enough to make such a major change? You say religion came back. No, it just resurfaces after long period of going underground once the oppression ease up, it doesn't come back because it never went away. ;)
Interesting, I wasnt sure if other countries that attempted "communism" went the same route with atheism.

In Russia it's a bit of both. Yes, it's valid to say the religion never went away and just resurfaced. In the daily life of a USSR citizen, the religion was gone almost entirely. For those that were born during USSR however, this became more than just on the surface, that was a reality. So if their parents didn't intervene in this, at least two generations under USSR had large % of atheists. Such is the case with my family, where grandparents while religious, didnt really make sure their children were. Still hard to count how many really.

Now I've no idea how to count either, there's an idea that the current resurgence of religious is also on the surface and for show.

And I dont really want to keep on guessing as it's not good info.

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 15:09
I could have brought it up once before, but that in relation to question of what's really agnosticism vs atheism.

Why Ketraar?
It's because of his "I don't care attitude". If I remember correctly that's how some people differentiate between agnosticism and atheism. Atheist don't believe, but neither they care what other believes as long as it doesn't encroach on their comfort zone. Agnostics while also don't believe, but are also conscious about what OTHER believes, and often eager to prove that those are wrong while their own belief is right.

If I can be a a bit presumptuous, someone like him would probably make a good Buddhist. :wink:
While maybe a friendlier attitude, but "I dont care" is not really relevant to atheism or agnosticism. It's a personal choice / philosophy / approach, and it's not part of either.


Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
If not, I can give a (my) simplified definition / correction.

Agnostics leave the possibility that god / supernatural being discovered to exist. An even stronger position of an Agnostic is that - the answer to the question of whether a god exists can never be known.

Atheist supposed to reject all supernatural explanations, forever. That in itself doesn't mean a God cant be discovered ever, it just means he/she/it will not be supernatural. Atheists generally reject the idea that whether or not a god exists is impossible to know. Maybe unlikely, but not impossible. I'd personally also add - that this all depends on what god we are talking about. Some people choose to separate each statement above into a different flavor of Atheism, I find it needlessly complex and not necessary.


Since we are making distinction between "care" and "not care", maybe I am not necessarily clear on what I mean with these discussions. Can talk more on this later.



Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I interprete that saying differently. Because if you push hard enough, then atheism itself can become a belief like any others.
Well the point is that when people are afraid or under stress, they'll pray to a god, including atheists.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I think that's the line that Atheist need to watch out for. Without moderation to keep it in check, giving enough zeal atheism may become a religion all but in name. And as I demonstrate, not all religion needs a god (and FYI, Buddhism is not the only one without a god).
I think the trick with atheism is to understand why one is atheist, if one is truly one, and not mimic what others are doing without understanding. I can see how mimicking can lead to a pseudo religion.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
To us general practitioners, it's not hard to reconcile even in the face of contradiction. I have a feeling that you - as an atheist - are imagining it to be a much bigger deal that it actually is for us :gruebel:
As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I practice both belief, daily, no problem at all. :D
Seems complicated :)
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 18:19
I can be scientific and religious at the same time, being atheist is not a pre-requiste to believe in science, neither becoming an atheist is a natural outcome/progression of being scientific.
I agree with that. The mind has the ability to go with both ideas, even if they contradict.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Jun 20, 23:33

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 22:11
Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
Nope, I don't know about accuracy, seeing it was still a matter of debate, I did say it fits 'my' image of atheism, but regardless I meant what I typed.
As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.
Kinda like how people tend to think special force soldiers are all macho-no-nonsense-stoic figures? :P
While there are some truth to your perception, holding a singular image for 'every' members of a group is hardly a good thing, no matter how typical you think the image is.
Seems complicated :)
Not at all, at least more simple than a physic equation for sure. :D

And you'll be surprise how an open mind help simplify things. You are only burden with finding the solution if you make it a problem in the first place.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Wed, 17. Jun 20, 04:20

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 23:33
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 22:11
Did you make a typo / swap meanings between Atheist and Agnostics ?
Nope, I don't know about accuracy, seeing it was still a matter of debate, I did say it fits 'my' image of atheism, but regardless I meant what I typed.
Gotcha, well hopefully my brief summary is understandable.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 23:33
As an atheist I take every scientist to be one for the purpose of their work.
Kinda like how people tend to think special force soldiers are all macho-no-nonsense-stoic figures? :P
While there are some truth to your perception, holding a singular image for 'every' members of a group is hardly a good thing, no matter how typical you think the image is.
That's just what's relevant to me when I read about other people's work. Specifically about their scientific work.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 16. Jun 20, 23:33
Seems complicated :)
Not at all, at least more simple than a physic equation for sure. :D

And you'll be surprise how an open mind help simplify things. You are only burden with finding the solution if you make it a problem in the first place.
But physics is easy! :)

Still - open mind is a goal, isn't it? To learn, to understand, to apply.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 04:59

a little on topic update,

so it seems we run into religious Russians more often than not.
what's interesting is how dismissive they are of Atheism, as in they don't think a Russian can be one. Maybe they had forgotten 80 some years after the Revolution.

still, I often don't have a good answer to something like (paraphrasing) "you are only atheist till the right time"
my only answer is a smile and a light laugh, as I can't even begin to start explain what it means.

is it a good idea to get into these arguments with friends of friends or am I right to let that one go? After all, they aren't looking for a debate, and I can always wear Thor's hammer to throw things off (Perun"s axe is harder to come by)

but there's some sadness to it. The"typical" Russian immigrant seems to be religious, "patriotic", anti vaccines, and close minded
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 05:33

it's rather pointless. There's a wealth of evidence to back your side, and none to back theirs, yet they believe anyway cause that's what they were told to do. You aren't going to be the one that changes their mind.

Kind of like it's always god smiting liberals when there's a wildfire in California but any of the SE states gets hit by a hurricane, it's just the weather. Some people are just lost causes.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 13:46

you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 14:30

fiksal wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 13:46
you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.
There is always a slight chance to have an effect. Not debating it, will for sure not have one. Doesnt mean you have to try and convince them, not all debates are there for one side to give in, its the sharing of ideas and perspectives and both sides will grow with the experience.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 15:05

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 14:30
fiksal wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 13:46
you are right, there's nothing to gain other than awkward conversation.
There is always a slight chance to have an effect. Not debating it, will for sure not have one. Doesnt mean you have to try and convince them, not all debates are there for one side to give in, its the sharing of ideas and perspectives and both sides will grow with the experience.

MFG

Ketraar
where do I even start, if they don't think it's possible to be an atheist? as in I am somehow lying
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Alan Phipps » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 15:48

I don't think they are necessarily disbelieving that somebody may lack belief within their normal day-to-day lives.

I suspect that what they might mean is that it is funny how some people can suddenly develop a perhaps transient 'emergency' belief when something totally unexpected, terrifying or life-threatening has just happened to them. Perhaps a situation of 'I don't really believe but I'm desperate, so just in case ...'.

Maybe develop or challenge something along that theme in your discussions with them?
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BaronVerde » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 16:38

Being an Atheist, i. e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any supernatural powers, deities, force, ... and I count my self into that categroy, isn't allways easy. Specifically when there's no data to support or disprove a view or notion and the brain starts to fill in the unknowns with experience or expectations, one is easily put into danger of forming a belief without actually consciuously noticing it.

It is allways simpler to accept a ready-made view, something heard or read, than to question it or simply ignore it if there's no data to support it, whatever it may be.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Sun, 8. Aug 21, 19:30

I used to know someone online who was of the genuinely-held opinion that only a secret fear of eternal punishment prevented everyone becoming sociopaths who would just do anything they wanted so long as it benefited them, regardless of what anyone else thought or did. So, according to him, even if you were an avowed atheist you were basically lying to yourself if you were a normal law-abiding citizen. There's absolutely no way to argue with logic like that!

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 03:06

BaronVerde wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 16:38
Being an Atheist, i. e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any supernatural powers, deities, force, ... and I count my self into that categroy, isn't allways easy. Specifically when there's no data to support or disprove a view or notion and the brain starts to fill in the unknowns with experience or expectations, one is easily put into danger of forming a belief without actually consciuously noticing it.

It is allways simpler to accept a ready-made view, something heard or read, than to question it or simply ignore it if there's no data to support it, whatever it may be.
I agree it's not easy. I also think I've maybe understood what it means to be an atheist really well into my 20s-30s. I probably claimed to be one when I was 16 yr old, but did I really understand it - perhaps not.

Alan Phipps wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 15:48
I don't think they are necessarily disbelieving that somebody may lack belief within their normal day-to-day lives.

I suspect that what they might mean is that it is funny how some people can suddenly develop a perhaps transient 'emergency' belief when something totally unexpected, terrifying or life-threatening has just happened to them. Perhaps a situation of 'I don't really believe but I'm desperate, so just in case ...'.

Maybe develop or challenge something along that theme in your discussions with them?
Interesting, but that sees like one needs a traumatic experience as an example when one specifically didnt call for any gods' help.

pjknibbs wrote:
Sun, 8. Aug 21, 19:30
I used to know someone online who was of the genuinely-held opinion that only a secret fear of eternal punishment prevented everyone becoming sociopaths who would just do anything they wanted so long as it benefited them, regardless of what anyone else thought or did. So, according to him, even if you were an avowed atheist you were basically lying to yourself if you were a normal law-abiding citizen. There's absolutely no way to argue with logic like that!
I've heard of those people; never met them. Maybe gladly. Because from the description it seems such thinking would apply to themselves as well, making them possibly sociopaths, or one step away from.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 07:41

What's that old saying, "Prayer is the last hope of the desperate"? It was made easy, especially in Christianity, where asking for forgiveness can be done at any time and that's all it takes to get your golden ticket into the ever after. It's no wonder that a lot of people suddenly find religion in prison or on the verge of their death.

I find the whole concept of some kind of after life mind boggling, personally. Be it reincarnation, being some kind of disembodied ghost like thing, or some kind of bodiless soul condemned to eternal torture or paradise. And the simple reason is medical science proves that memory is linked to the brain.

Take amnesia or Alzheimer's for example. If memory was tied to the supposed soul, then why do people experience memory impacting states? Why can someone who's lived 30+ years suffer complete amnesia and develop a completely different personality than exhibited prior to their trauma? If our "eternal soul" can't survive survive something that comparatively trivial, then what good is it, really? And what are the actual chances that you, personally, will experience any torture if you go against any sky wizard's wishes? Or what's the chances that you're gonna remember to give a crap if you're reincarnated as a dung beetle? What if you suffer complete amnesia moments before your death and don't remember to ask cloud man for permission to enter his house?

If babies aren't baptized and they die, according to christian dogma, they aren't allowed into heaven. So innocent children that aren't baptized, with or most likely without their knowledge, are condemned to hell. Totally makes sense, right? Because they've done so much wrong in their life; brand new soul entered into the world without their consent and experiences a tragedy and is made to eternally suffer.

I just don't get why anyone would voluntarily swallow any of this nonsense.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Mailo
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed, 5. May 04, 01:10
x3

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mailo » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 11:03

Hilariously enough, according to several surveys (a quick google found this one, though it does not say how many people were polled; I remember reading about it much earlier as well though), a significant part of US christians believe in reincarnation. Er ... huh? I mean ... how? That contradicts pretty much every central rule of their religion?
But I'm pretty sure they are still looking down on any that are not as christian as they are. What was that line from Amish Paradise by Weird Al? "Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art."

As to unbaptized people / babies being condemned to hell (keep in mind there are billions of people who died before they or anyone in their vicinity even heard of christianity, those are damned as well. I assume there is a rule for people who died before christianity was invented?), one sect (was it Mormons?) found a way around that ... they started baptizing people after they died. "Luckily" for the dead, neither their nor their relatives consent was required, so they even could baptize Jews that died in the holocaust ... as you can imagine, that one went over really well.

Speaking of Mormons, in my opinion they pretty much take the cake in the "swallow nonsense" department. Their holy book was written by a guy in 1829, and it is very much reflected in the text, as it contains many references to the state of knowledge of this year, which was found to be false in the following decades. Also, the racism in the book is pretty much the state of the era. Basically, the book is proven wrong by science. Mormons must be able to ignore this dichotomy, which is why I got REALLY scared when a Mormon got quite far in the last presidential race.
As a personal service to all who try to keep up with my professional work:
[ external image ]

My script: Shiploot v1.04 ... loot shipwrecks, collect different loot parts and upgrade your ships!
Mein Skript: Schiffswracks looten v1.04 ... Durchsuche Schiffswracks, sammle Lootteile und verbessere Deine Schiffe!

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 11:58

Mailo wrote:
Thu, 12. Aug 21, 11:03
As to unbaptized people / babies being condemned to hell (keep in mind there are billions of people who died before they or anyone in their vicinity even heard of christianity, those are damned as well. I assume there is a rule for people who died before christianity was invented?)
In Dante's "Divine Comedy" the first level of Hell (Limbo) is devoted to "righteous pagans", e.g. people of non-Christian origins who are nonetheless not actively evil. Basically, it's presented as a rather dull, boring place with no actual punishments but nothing much of interest happening either.

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Alan Phipps » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 15:29

Ah, then I can think of many examples of a local Limbo (aka the first level of Hell) here in my home town. You know, as you get significantly older, they can become more attractive than some of the livelier alternatives. :wink:
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Thu, 12. Aug 21, 15:41

Mailo wrote:
Thu, 12. Aug 21, 11:03
Hilariously enough, according to several surveys (a quick google found this one, though it does not say how many people were polled; I remember reading about it much earlier as well though), a significant part of US christians believe in reincarnation. Er ... huh? I mean ... how? That contradicts pretty much every central rule of their religion?
Christianity in of itself is fraught with contradiction. "you have free will", "you're following dude's plan", "do as I say or else". "homosexuality is a sin" "we're all created in god's image". Why not believe in reincarnation too?
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”