E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

You have to question the ethics of any person who choose to worship a god that would torture the majority of the world's population forever.
Especially if they claim to get their morals from this same god.

Ugh! Can't debate politics/religion while foruming at work, not enough time to collect thoughts! ARGH!

What difference does it make? Neither science nor religion are overly fond of their followers questioning them.

Thinking for yourself is still the best faith of all.

Geoffrey42:

PedroSteckecilo:

Church and State MUST be separate, otherwise we cannot have truly responsible government, unless you could prove that 100% of your constituency is of ONE faith, and only One faith, you should not, as a public official, espouse your beliefs, atheistic, Christian or otherwise. As well I feel my beliefs are not amoral on any ground outside of one backed by religious beliefs, hence why should they be restricted by laws? My "religion" doesn't find them wrong, so why should the religious be allowed to tell me what to do? Why can they say "My Kids MUST be taught their WRONG opinion so they will be more inclined to choose our faith." Why not give them the choice to make up their own minds? Guys like this shouldn't, in an ideal world, be allowed to say shit like this and remain in office.

Oh yes, I don't think atheism counts as a religion, the absence of something does not make it something. I choose NOT to believe, and I simply do not want others forcing me to believe, I only believe they are wrong when their beliefs are forced upon me.

You go on a tirade about the separation of church and state, then condemn the guy for making a comment about his personal beliefs? How are those related? As long as he maintains the separation of church and state in his activities as a governor, what does it matter? I think this goes back to what Malygris said before about a root-disconnect between the US and the rest of the Western world as it pertains to publicly espoused religious beliefs and public office. Rather than just saying "It is bad that he said this", why not back it up with some of your secular, humanistic reason and evidence?

I find it entertaining that you think that atheism is not a religion. What else can you call a belief with no proof, except to call it faith? A lack of proof is not evidence against. Come! Join the agnostics! Life makes so much more sense over here!

Lack of proof proves nothing indeed.
It is essensially impossible to prove non-existance. However, there are infinite things that do not exist. I do not require proof that they do not. 400 billion undetectable pink, cart-wheeling hippopotami on the moon, for instance.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of belief that there is a god.
As has been stated famously many places, everyone are atheists to most of the gods that have ever been believed in. A lot of us are just taking it one step further.

Agnosticism is just not taking a stand. Either you believe there is a supreme being behind the world and all that is in it, or you do not. Do you say a weak "maybe" just because a lot of other people have decided they believe? Or are you hiding some credible evidence for a supreme being that you do not think is ready for publication yet?
Are you as agnostic about the pink hippopotami on the moon, or Santa Claus, or Freddy Kreuger, or aliens hiding in the shoes of your dentist?

Must be hard not to check for man-eating monsters in your closet every night. After all, lack of proof is not evidence against.

Arbre:

Huh, that's a problem of context, or perspective.

By definition, yes, nonbelievers are exempt because they don't believe, because the Hell claim is just a subcase of the whole religious rumour issue.
For those who do believe in the texts, those willfully ignorant ones will go down into the Pit of Fire.
You can't people to agree, because the standards are different.
But I side with nonbelievers, for the simple reason that any shmuck on Earth can craft an hypothesis, then say it's correct, and therefore claim that there's a Hell and whatever, and that if you don't buy in said theory you go down the flush pipe. HA. HA. HA.
The mere difference being that you have 2000 years of "history" to *cough* back it up.

I get the overwhelming impression that we agree, but that we're talking about different things. Understand that my whole point presupposes that Hell does, in fact, exist, and that non-believers will be sent there when they die to be tortured. Now, given that we here on Earth have absolutely no methods to prove or disprove this, we have no basis for gauging whether the Perry's and Hagee's of the world are correct, or not. Thus, we end up with a lot of people that believe, and a lot of people that don't believe. They each have their reasons, and neither has any particular incentive to believe otherwise (because, as stated, the 'threat' of Hell is rather ineffective against those that don't believe in it.)

In the end, given the original condition that Hell does exist, and non-believers are sent there, the non-believers disbelief does nothing to protect them from it. This is a semantic point, and largely irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out how silly it is to say "I'm not going to Hell, because I don't believe in it". Kind of like saying "If I step out of a plane with no form of equipment, just me and my birthday suit, I will not fall because I do not believe in gravity." The latter we can verify scientifically, and thus it sounds much sillier, but the former is equally, if not more, silly, because it cannot be verified.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Ok, let's take the Sims 2.

A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (Now I think that's a tick) especially as homosexual parents can have children.
B) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality;
(More difficult, but I'm sure good old JT could describe them as offensive giving the panning Mass Effect got)
C) It's a game; Therefore we lose.

Now, off the top of my head, I could apply this to any game that depicts sexual acts between adults, because unless your defining "obscence" or "average" then JT et. al. will have a reasonably solid case, for once.

Load up Mortal Kombat by De-Rez or Tomb Raider by Yahtzee; and see if you can't provide a solid reason for them to be withheld due to that law.

I remain at a loss for your point. Are you arguing that standard US boilerplate obscenity laws don't make sense? That they are largely arbitrary and arguable? Ummm, yes. Point of fact. They were made that way on purpose, so as to evolve with the changing standards of the community. This is why they're typically handled in courts, where judges either come up with new tests, or make "judgment calls" on whether a particular item fails or passes the existing tests. If an individual community wants to declare Sims 2 as obscene, they are allowed to do so, and Sims 2 will not be allowed display in public. If the state of Texas wants to declare Sims 2 obscene and deny the developers subsidies to make it there, they get to do that. I'm fairly certain that JT et. al. HAVE spent a great deal of time trying to get obscenity laws applied to various videogames (without too much success).

Why you bring up De-Rez or Zero Punctuation, I'm unsure, because they don't qualify as "digital interactive media production"s, and thus would not fall under the scope of the clause in this particular law. Would you be subject to obscenity laws in most US communities if you chose to blow up ZP on the side of your house, and show it to the kiddies in the neighborhood? Highly likely. What's new about this?? Again, let me be clear: if you want to argue about the basis of US obscenity law, the Miller test, fine and dandy, but there's no point in mixing that argument up with the Texas subsidy law/Gov. Rick Perry and his heathen views. And if you do want to debate the Miller Test, I really recommend a new forum thread, because it has approximately nil to do with this one.

Quoted: Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of belief that there is a god.

A-theism = A, meaning without or opposite of, theism meaning a belief in a deity.

A-gnostic = A, meaning without or opposite of, gnosis, meaning knowledge.

Atheism is a belief there is not a god or god-like creature. Agnosticism is a belief that there is no information that indicate god exists.

Also: Intolerance occurs when people won't let others practice their beliefs and hold their opinions IN PEACE.

I somehow find it ironic that all the "intolerance" filled a-somethings always come out of the woodwork and declare that the "Christians are intolerant!" then proceed to muse about putting us in asylums and killing us.

Irony, thy name is Internet Atheists.

Skyweir:

Lack of proof proves nothing indeed.
It is essensially impossible to prove non-existance. However, there are infinite things that do not exist. I do not require proof that they do not. 400 billion undetectable pink, cart-wheeling hippopotami on the moon, for instance.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of belief that there is a god.
As has been stated famously many places, everyone are atheists to most of the gods that have ever been believed in. A lot of us are just taking it one step further.

Agnosticism is just not taking a stand. Either you believe there is a supreme being behind the world and all that is in it, or you do not. Do you say a weak "maybe" just because a lot of other people have decided they believe? Or are you hiding some credible evidence for a supreme being that you do not think is ready for publication yet?
Are you as agnostic about the pink hippopotami on the moon, or Santa Claus, or Freddy Kreuger, or aliens hiding in the shoes of your dentist?

Must be hard not to check for man-eating monsters in your closet every night. After all, lack of proof is not evidence against.

Not an entirely fair summation of my position on the matter. I was having this conversation with a friend offline, and they made the distinction about what an "atheist" truly is, the lack of belief that there is a god, as opposed to the belief that there is not a god. The issue becomes that there are people who identify themselves as "atheist", who think "there is no god". You and I agree that it is essentially impossible to prove the non-existence of something, and thus my issue is with this splinter group of idiots: let's call them "anti-theists".

As to why agnostic isn't just a "weak 'maybe'": if there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of one or more gods, then why take a position either way? Why even bother answering the question, if I have nothing to gain FROM answering the question? As per pink hippopotamuses, they are apparently invisible, then sure, they don't impact me, I don't care. Santa Claus may exist, but the stories are apparently wrong. Why spend so much time debating what does not exist? I'm just saying, ignore the question. Who cares? You can't prove it. Let's spend our time exploring those things about which we can make positive claims.

And you know what? If I bother to think about it before going to bed, and I ponder all the different ways I could die before the morning, I eventually just get to sleep by accepting that I may be dead in the morning. No point in losing sleep over it. Pretending that there is nothing out there that may or may not kill you tonite is a waste of your energy; accept that there may be, and go to sleep.

Skyweir:

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of belief that there is a god.

If that's the definition of atheism, then rocks and trees are atheists.

If we want to keep rocks and trees from being called atheists, then atheism can't be a simple 'lack' of all beliefs about god. Rather, it has to be a different belief when it comes to the question of whether there is a god. To lack belief in something you must not even be aware of the concept of a thing, or the concept must be dependent on believing something you have already considered and rejected. Atheists are aware of the concept of god, and they have an active belief that such a being does not exist.

As has been stated famously many places, everyone are atheists to most of the gods that have ever been believed in. A lot of us are just taking it one step further.

I always thought that was such a silly statement. I mean, is the existence of one unicorn just "one step farther" than the existence of many unicorns? A decrease from 2 to 1 is a quantitative difference; the decrease from 1 to 0 is a qualitative one, is it not?

Agnosticism is just not taking a stand. Either you believe there is a supreme being behind the world and all that is in it, or you do not.

Agnosticism is taking the stand that there is not sufficient evidence to answer the question either way. Agnostics might by default believe that there is no god on the basis of Occam's Razor, but, that's different than an atheist.

To make an analogy to science (that hopefully is accurate), we are 'atheists' today that outer space is filled with luminiferous ether; we are 'agnostics' today about whether dark matter exists.

Are you as agnostic about the pink hippopotami on the moon, or Santa Claus, or Freddy Kreuger, or aliens hiding in the shoes of your dentist?

In order: we have been to the moon; we have been to the north pole; we know a great deal about sleep and dreaming; if aliens were in the shoes of my dentist why hasn't he turned those shoes over to some scientists as proof of extra-terrestrial life?

Must be hard not to check for man-eating monsters in your closet every night. After all, lack of proof is not evidence against.

Why, do you live in an environment where there isn't overwhelming evidence against a man-eating monster having slipped into your closet?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

If that's the definition of atheism, then rocks and trees are atheists.

If we want to keep rocks and trees from being called atheists, then atheism can't be a simple 'lack' of all beliefs about god. Rather, it has to be a different belief when it comes to the question of whether there is a god. To lack belief in something you must not even be aware of the concept of a thing, or the concept must be dependent on believing something you have already considered and rejected. Atheists are aware of the concept of god, and they have an active belief that such a being does not exist.

Agnosticism is taking the stand that there is not sufficient evidence to answer the question either way. Agnostics might by default believe that there is no god on the basis of Occam's Razor, but, that's different than an atheist.

Um... rocks and trees don't think, hence they can't be "theists" thus they must be... AHTEISTS, the absence of theism, is athiesm. If you must label Atheism a religion, then Atheism as a belief system is a strong belief in the absence of belief, or reasons to believe, which I think would be closer to the concept of Anti-Theism.

On the topic of agnosticism, there is ANOTHER current of belief in Agnosticism called Strong Agnosticism, which rather than taking the stance that there is "insufficient evidence" they believe that there can NEVER be evidence, that it is impossible to understand a supreme being, even IF one does exist, feeling that a being such as "god" is so far above us in wisdom, intelligence, power or whatever else you want to attribute to it that we CANNOT possible understand it or explain it, and anyone who attempts to do so is arrogant and foolish.

tsaketh:
Well, he's completely right. That's a base concept of most fundamentalist churches and of the Catholic church.

That's not exactly accurate today as far as the Catholic Church

PedroSteckecilo:

Um... rocks and trees don't think, hence they can't be "theists" thus they must be... AHTEISTS, the absence of theism, is athiesm. If you must label Atheism a religion, than Atheism as a belief system is a strong belief in the absence of belief, or reasons to believe, which I think would be closer to the concept of Anti-Theism.

Just going with the popular definition of atheism. If we're being totally lexicographically accurate, atheism really wouldn't describe most people who identify as such, as they also don't believe in things like an immortal, non-material soul that is reincarnated: a religious belief that does not necessarily imply the existence of a god, which is what the 'theism' part of the word 'a-theism' refers to.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Just going with the popular definition of atheism. If we're being totally lexicographically accurate, atheism really wouldn't describe most people who identify as such, as they also don't believe in things like an immortal, non-material soul that is reincarnated: a religious belief that does not necessarily imply the existence of a god, which is what the 'theism' part of the word 'a-theism' refers to.

I made a fallacious assertion that Rocks and Trees are atheists, as Atheism requires an active component, you must actively assert that there is no supreme being(s), that you actively disbelieve in a supreme being(s) or that a supreme being(s) cannot exist. There is no inactive state of disbelief in the current climate of "belief". The Theism portion of the word acts as a clarifier, the describe what it isn't. Though it's not a very good word to describe the belief system as linguistically it kinda sucks.

Arbre:

Pope JP2:
A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post :-)

PedroSteckecilo:

The actual definition of Atheism does follow your reasoning more closely than it does mine, hence I made a fallacious assertion that Rocks and Trees are atheists, as Atheism requires an active component, you must actively assert that there is no supreme being(s), that you actively disbelieve in a supreme being(s) or that a supreme being(s) cannot exist. There is no inactive state of disbelief in the current climate of "belief".

I think we actually agree, that the definition atheists try and push as a way of showing they don't have a religion is too sloppy and would include rocks and trees.

I would say that the best way to describe it is that, while atheism is not a religion or a religious belief, it is a belief about the subject of religion.

I would also say that atheists have *philosophical* beliefs, that are to some extent the analog of a religious person's religious beliefs, and that they have social institutions that function much the same as religious institutions from a cultural point of view.

I also think there are many flavors of atheism, from the Occam's Razor atheist who believes no god entity exists based on physical evidence, to atheists who believe that there is no god as an alternative to believing that there is only a devil, because the events of the world 'prove' to them by their wickedness that no just god could exist.

...God I miss Ann Richards. This asshat is planning to run again too.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

Pope JP2:
A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post :-)

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

Geoffrey42:
I get the overwhelming impression that we agree, but that we're talking about different things. Understand that my whole point presupposes that Hell does, in fact, exist, and that non-believers will be sent there when they die to be tortured. Now, given that we here on Earth have absolutely no methods to prove or disprove this, we have no basis for gauging whether the Perry's and Hagee's of the world are correct, or not. Thus, we end up with a lot of people that believe, and a lot of people that don't believe. They each have their reasons, and neither has any particular incentive to believe otherwise (because, as stated, the 'threat' of Hell is rather ineffective against those that don't believe in it.)

In the end, given the original condition that Hell does exist, and non-believers are sent there, the non-believers disbelief does nothing to protect them from it. This is a semantic point, and largely irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out how silly it is to say "I'm not going to Hell, because I don't believe in it". Kind of like saying "If I step out of a plane with no form of equipment, just me and my birthday suit, I will not fall because I do not believe in gravity." The latter we can verify scientifically, and thus it sounds much sillier, but the former is equally, if not more, silly, because it cannot be verified.

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

Geoffrey42:
Lots of stuff including "Why you bring up De-Rez or Zero Punctuation, I'm unsure, because they don't qualify as "digital interactive media production"s, and thus would not fall under the scope of the clause in this particular law."

Hrrm...IANAL but I would have thought both count, or is it the interactive part that doesn't count?

The link, as far as I can see it, is that Texas Governor votes against mature representations of sex, but is then asked to make a delegate speech at a place that produces mature representations of sex.

And, given that ZP are looking to make T-Shirts with 'obscene' slogans on them (And it was fucking awesome), couldn't that Texas Law block them receiving funding?

a strong belief in the absence of belief,

Surely this is paradoxical? A strong belief in the absence of a metaphysical belief system would be more accurate, wouldn't it?

Arbre:

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post :-)

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

Where are you getting that from? What are you talking about "failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited"?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post :-)

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

Where are you getting that from? What are you talking about "failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited"?

From the Pope's speech. Trying to lecture people on science and theories, but didn't even compute that if he had to test and verify his own theory, he'd have failed. Yet, that didn't stop him from pretending that when science theories fail, religion picks up the torch for the greater good.
Whatever.

Arbre:

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

Where are you getting that from? What are you talking about "failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited"?

From the Pope's speech. Trying to lecture people on science and theories, but didn't even compute that if he had to test and verify his own theory, he'd have failed. Yet, that didn't stop him from pretending that when science theories fail, religion picks up the torch for the greater good.
Whatever.

Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

Arbre:

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

This is actually a really complex question. Let's look at it from a different point of view.

There's an insane guy who thinks he's the Emperor of All Humanity. He wears a Burger King crown to demonstrate this. He thinks we are all his slaves.

Yet he treats us all as equals in every way, shape, and form in civil society. He thinks his title of Emperor has no validity in any court of law. He seeks no political power based on his title.

Would we call such a person 'intolerant' just because he considers us all his slaves yet treats us with complete tolerance? Is it intolerance to judge someone according to a metaphysical standard they reject if there are no real world consequences to that judgment?

The_root_of_all_evil:

a strong belief in the absence of belief,

Surely this is paradoxical? A strong belief in the absence of a metaphysical belief system would be more accurate, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. That would only cover materialist atheists. Plenty of atheists have belief systems that are metaphysical, if metaphysical means anything that is not physical, i.e. an object of the physical sciences.

Atheists are quite capable of having strong moral beliefs, and many of those beliefs would be best characterized as metaphysical, right?

I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

Nice to see so many 1 to 10 post wonders sign up just to say "there is no god hur hur hur." Interesting view point. But so is thinking Al gore is made of greenhouse gasses.

SilentHunter7:
I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Also, think about every time you have insulted the side opposite of you on the religious spectrum. Every attack, regardless of founding. All those insults? They are the reason why the other side are so defensive and dogmatic. You tell someone they are going to burn in hell, they are going to call you ignorant, so you are going to get defensive, so they are going to call you dogmatic, so you are going to defend your values in a public scene, so...and so on and so on. Your not going to change how the other person thinks. Insults will only make your opponent fight harder.

Sure, let the guy talk at E3. Even if he does start preaching moral superiority, he will just get laughed at. Chances are there will be no problem.

Most of the debate on Christianity and other sects goes this way.

There's a reasonable precedent for believing in a higher power until we can explain all aspects of the known universe (Which Science is well behind on), and as soon as we do explain it, we become the higher power.

On the Atheist side, firm conviction there is NOT a God is also a -theism, and therefore a religion, chockful of all the help books, stupidity but good people that populate all the rest of the Religions.

The battles come over proselytizing to others what they SHOULD believe in. Now as long as Perry keeps his mouth shut on that, I'd guess he's welcome.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Most of the debate on Christianity and other sects goes this way.

There's a reasonable precedent for believing in a higher power until we can explain all aspects of the known universe (Which Science is well behind on), and as soon as we do explain it, we become the higher power.

On the Atheist side, firm conviction there is NOT a God is also a -theism, and therefore a religion, chockful of all the help books, stupidity but good people that populate all the rest of the Religions.

The battles come over proselytizing to others what they SHOULD believe in. Now as long as Perry keeps his mouth shut on that, I'd guess he's welcome.

No, it's a belief, maybe unfounded, but which totally forbids the divine essence. It can certainly not be theism in any shape or form.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

God creating the universe is a theory, nothing more.
Therefore, he goes through a lenghty explanation of the hows and whys of theory failures and limits in regards of tests, a constant verification against the fact. Part of a theory is that it can predict what will happen, and if verified, the theory becomes superior to others.
Thus far, religion keeps making claims out of the blue, but all fail at step 1.
The transition to faith is made when you still think a theory is true, but without a shred of evidence and capability to prove it, and assert its predictability.

This is actually a really complex question. Let's look at it from a different point of view.
There's an insane guy who thinks he's the Emperor of All Humanity. He wears a Burger King crown to demonstrate this. He thinks we are all his slaves.
Yet he treats us all as equals in every way, shape, and form in civil society. He thinks his title of Emperor has no validity in any court of law. He seeks no political power based on his title.

Would we call such a person 'intolerant' just because he considers us all his slaves yet treats us with complete tolerance? Is it intolerance to judge someone according to a metaphysical standard they reject if there are no real world consequences to that judgment?

This is a bad case. He's simply a nutjob who thinks we are his pawns, but is not capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in.
The Hell concept is a wholely different affair, and establishes a undodgeable law which will apply to all, nevermind what happens, and those who didn't agree (non-believers) will be tormented for eternity.

This is not better than any intolerant and tyrannic shit you hear from the fundie front, no matter the part of the world it comes from.

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

Arbre:

No, it's a belief, maybe unfounded, but which totally forbids the divine essence. It can certainly not be theism in any shape or form.

Doesn't matter how much bold you use, it's still a Religion as it's a belief based on unfounded evidence of a Divine existence. Theism was actually defined FROM atheism.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

God creating the universe is a theory, nothing more.

God not creating the universe is also a theory.

This is not better than any intolerant and tyrannic shit you hear from the fundie front, no matter the part of the world it comes from.

That includes the atheist demographic. Fundamentalism does not equate to Religion.

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

Have you tried the same with your Atheistic belief where you still believe in crazy ideas like Electrons, Quarks, Relativity and Celebrating Christmas? Realistically, there's no proof in any of these, just accumulated data.

Xanadu84:

SilentHunter7:
I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Dante is the only person who actually posited a philosophical basis for Hell that both made sense and that I'd agree with. And the popes he put in Hell were all corrupt bastards.

I know he's not cannon, but he put a lot of humanity into the faith.

Arbre:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

God creating the universe is a theory, nothing more.
Therefore, he goes through a lenghty explanation of the hows and whys of theory failures and limits in regards of tests, a constant verification against the fact. Part of a theory is that it can predict what will happen, and if verified, the theory becomes superior to others.
Thus far, religion keeps making claims out of the blue, but all fail at step 1.
The transition to faith is made when you still think a theory is true, but without a shred of evidence and capability to prove it, and assert its predictability.

Right. So...I fail to see your point. Religion makes claims out of the blue that fail as scientific theories. So does the Declaration of Independence when it makes the statement: "all men are created equal."

This is actually a really complex question. Let's look at it from a different point of view.
There's an insane guy who thinks he's the Emperor of All Humanity. He wears a Burger King crown to demonstrate this. He thinks we are all his slaves.
Yet he treats us all as equals in every way, shape, and form in civil society. He thinks his title of Emperor has no validity in any court of law. He seeks no political power based on his title.

Would we call such a person 'intolerant' just because he considers us all his slaves yet treats us with complete tolerance? Is it intolerance to judge someone according to a metaphysical standard they reject if there are no real world consequences to that judgment?

This is a bad case. He's simply a nutjob who thinks we are his pawns, but is not capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in.

*exactly* and "capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in" wasn't part of your original statement. All you said was that if someone believes another person will go to hell, that's intolerance. Now you're modifying what you said to add the quality described in the passage of yours quoted to the mix.

It's a bad case as far as what you had in mind, but it's a perfect case as far as what you actually wrote in the other comment which you are adding to in this one.

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

The same could be said of being honest with ourselves about our belief that our parents love us.

The fact is we all live our lives using all kinds of standards for acquiring 'knowledge' besides some hardcore, Vienna Circle logical positivism verifiability theory standard. Yet any knowledge of a god must pass this test that we don't apply to so much of the rest of our lives.

+++++

Besides, I bet if most atheists were really honest with themselves I bet they'd realize that their atheism has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with rebellion (bandwagon style), cynical disbelief for merry tales, feeling of superiority in believing something assumed as "hard", and in most cases, being forced to believe in (edit) the opposite during the first parts of childhood.

Just because all people believing in A are necessarily irrational doesn't mean any act of belief in not-A is necessarily rational. When it comes to the question of whether you are acting rationally in believing something, it's not enough that what you believe in is rational; you must also be motivated by reason and not by something else to believe it.

If those words are what he beleives, (under my unlawful judgement) he is a very misinformed Christian.

Time to play the devil's advocate. Surely if he does believe that stuff, it is A) his right, and more importantly, B) if he speaks at E3, why do his beliefs matter? Surely he won't use a gaming conference as a pulpit.

True enough thebobmaster, unless he wants to Moralize, then no force on earth could stop him.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Hrrm...IANAL but I would have thought both count, or is it the interactive part that doesn't count?

The link, as far as I can see it, is that Texas Governor votes against mature representations of sex, but is then asked to make a delegate speech at a place that produces mature representations of sex.

And, given that ZP are looking to make T-Shirts with 'obscene' slogans on them (And it was fucking awesome), couldn't that Texas Law block them receiving funding?

IANAL either, but statements like "digital interactive media production" typically mean a Production of a Media which is Interactive and Digital. ANDs, not ORs. ZP, and De-Rez both fall outside the obscenity clause in this particular bill. As I said though, they are VERY likely to fall under other obscenity clauses, in other contexts. You might also consider that ZP or De-Rez probably don't employ a large enough number of residents of the state of Texas to even be considered in the first place (even as a film/moving picture product), let alone denied for reasons of obscenity under a clause which wouldn't apply to their category. T-Shirts? T-Shirts DEFINITELY don't fall under this bill.

Also, the Texas Governor did not "vote against mature representations of sex". I'm not sure how familiar you are with the US legislative system... The legislature created the bill (potentially, with influence from the Office of the Governor, but I haven't found any coverage of that aspect in my research), and after passing their House of Representatives (with additions/edits/etc), was sent to the Senate, who did the same thing (added stuff/excluded things/changed wordings like how they phrased "film"), and after passing the Senate, was sent to the Governor's office to be signed into law. The only way to extrapolate that the Governor voted "against mature representations of sex" is to say that he explicitly approved of every aspect of the way the bill was written, by not veto-ing the bill and demanding a rewrite. I think the majority of the time that a bill is signed into law, the Executor is noting that nothing is problematic enough to warrant fighting with the legislature over. Tacit approval of what is in the bill is about as far as it gets.

Not to mention, signing a bill with an obscenity clause does not exclude all depictions of mature sex, it just excludes all obscene depictions of mature sex, as defined by Texas State Penal Code section 43.21. You are digging for obvious contradictions, where there are none (obvious ones, at least). It's just not as clear-cut as that.

Arbre:

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Going with the rest of your commentary with Cheeze_Pavilion, whether or not the person goes to Hell is outside of the individual's control, and always will be. The disconnect with the present-day madman who thinks everyone IS his slave, and lacks the power to enforce it, is the time-lapse. The Hell thing is later, not now. It would be more like the madmen believing that after he dies, then all others will be his pawns. It is not that he lacks the power to enforce it now, but that he doesn't believe he has any need or right to do so.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Right. So...I fail to see your point.

I was just commenting on the Pope's words, not engaging into a debate with you. :)

This is a bad case. He's simply a nutjob who thinks we are his pawns, but is not capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in.

*exactly* and "capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in" wasn't part of your original statement.
All you said was that if someone believes another person will go to hell, that's intolerance. Now you're modifying what you said to add the quality described in the passage of yours quoted to the mix.

What?
Please, don't make things more complicated than they are. I was handled an improper analogy, which in no way helped to dispute the idea that fear of Hell is just "therrorism".

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

The same could be said of being honest with ourselves about our belief that our parents love us.

This would be a short lived debate which, I'm afraid, has no relevance there. Please keep it on rails.

Besides, I bet if most atheists were really honest with themselves I bet they'd realize that their atheism has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with rebellion (bandwagon style), cynical disbelief for merry tales, feeling of superiority in believing something assumed as "hard", and in most cases, being forced to believe in (edit) the opposite during the first parts of childhood.

Yes, but I never said I was an extreme atheist. I'm in the zone where there's that sign at the entry which says "I'm ignorant and I live with it, I do think about it, I have possibilities but intil time comes, I'm stuck with that", not the one that says "Believe in God or you'll go to Hell".

Just because all people believing in A are necessarily irrational doesn't mean any act of belief in not-A is necessarily rational. When it comes to the question of whether you are acting rationally in believing something, it's not enough that what you believe in is rational; you must also be motivated by reason and not by something else to believe it.

I wasn't trying to defend extreme atheism.
That said, atheism is wise in the sense that it requires proof that something exists, and doesn't rely on empty claims. That's basically how science works to sort the nonsense out of possibly good suppositions.

Geoffrey42:

Arbre:

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Complicity, yes. Then it makes God intolerant. Oh, why would he bother, since he's God anyway?
But then, why would an entity such as God would even take time setting up a system where mere unbelieving mortal would go to "Hell"?
The core concept is absolutely absurd.
A true God wouldn't bother.
It makes this version of God just a petulant child who spits at the screen because the AI doesn't do what he ordered it to do with his mouse.

Going with the rest of your commentary with Cheeze_Pavilion, whether or not the person goes to Hell is outside of the individual's control, and always will be. The disconnect with the present-day madman who thinks everyone IS his slave, and lacks the power to enforce it, is the time-lapse. The Hell thing is later, not now. It would be more like the madmen believing that after he dies, then all others will be his pawns. It is not that he lacks the power to enforce it now, but that he doesn't believe he has any need or right to do so.

Then the analogy was incorrect.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here