PDA

View Full Version : Christian Necrophobes



whag
08-30-2015, 10:56 AM
9218

"There is death because of the fall of mankind."

Let's talk about death some more.

The above quotation is from a Christian I know who said she's not afraid of death, but that everyone who's not a Christian *is* afraid because they fear being judged by a holy God. I can list many people, from gay teens who committed suicide to soldiers to high-wire walkers without a safety net, who didn't have a fear of death. So maybe the Christians who claim that all non-Christians fear death really just mean "some"? They'll have to clarify.

I contend that some Christians who can't process the fact that God, if he exists, invented death are themselves fearful of death and probably converted for that shallow reason. Some, not all.

To help them grow, I'd like for this thread to delve into the many consilient lines of evidence proving that death originated eons ago.

KingsGambit
08-30-2015, 11:00 AM
To clarify; are we asserting that the existence of suicide is proof that death is not universally feared? Even the Bible itself portrays a few people as committing suicide (Zimri and Judas come to mind), for what it's worth. And I'd agree that not everybody is afraid of death, but I don't think that a few exceptions disprove what could be a general principle.

Jichard
08-30-2015, 11:07 AM
9218

"There is death because of the fall of mankind."

Let's talk about death some more.

The above quotation is from a Christian I know who said she's not afraid of death, but that everyone who's not a Christian *is* afraid because they fear being judged by a holy God. I can list many people, from gay teens who committed suicide to soldiers to high-wire walkers without a safety net, who didn't have a fear of death. So maybe the Christians who claim that all non-Christians fear death really just mean "some"? They'll have to clarify.

I contend that some Christians who can't process the fact that God, if he exists, invented death are themselves fearful of death and probably converted for that shallow reason. Some, not all.

Well, it's pretty clear that fear of death motivates religious belief in many people. For example:



"No Atheists in Foxholes: Motivated Reasoning and Religious Belief"
static.squarespace.com/static/5014cf5ce4b006ef411a1485/t/5044073ce4b0991b726a57f1/1346635580839/


"Recent research has focused on motivational bases of political ideology. It is plausible that similar factors may drive the formation of religious ideology. Though explanations of the existence of religious beliefs in terms of their satisfaction of psychological needs date back centuries, limited empirical research exists linking motivated reasoning to religious belief. I thoroughly review existing research on the role of motivation in the formation of religious belief systems, specifically research related to the relationship between fear of death and afterlife belief. Then I present the results of two original, experimental studies investigating the hypothesis that fear of death leads to greater religious belief. In Study 1, participants who were asked to write short essays about death reported greater belief in an afterlife than did participants who wrote essays on a neutral topic. Study 2 replicated this finding and also showed that increased fear of death leads to greater belief in God [emphasis added]. The results of the studies suggest that a more parsimonious motivated reasoning account may explain the relationship between fear of death and afterlife belief better than one based on Terror Management Theory. Taken together, findings support the notion that some religious beliefs can be usefully explained in motivational terms."


To help them grow, I'd like for this thread to delve into the many consilient lines of evidence proving that death originated eons ago.

Well, they're are numerous fossils from dead organisms that died long before humans existed, and thus died long before any human could have (supposedly) sinned. For example:



"Exceptional soft-tissue preservation in a theropod dinosaur from Italy"
nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6674/full/392383a0.html


"During Albian time (about 113 Myr ago1), deposition of fine marly limestone in a shallow lagoonal environment, affected by cyclic periods of low oxygen levels2, led to exceptional preservation of soft tissue in a juvenile theropod."

JimL
08-30-2015, 11:55 AM
Aging and death is a natural and unwelcome process in the nature of existence. The story of the fall was a way to remove what is seen as the evil of death from god and hang it squarely on the shoulders of the created. Unfortunately for believers, death has been around for as long as life has, for humans long before the claimed biblical history of creation and the fall of man, and so has nothing to do with mans disobedience to god 6000 years or so ago. There is really nothing to fear about death itself, since once dead there is no anguish of any kind. So I don't think that fear of death is an accurate way to frame the emotion, its more a fear of losing life. The reason that the christian in the above is not afraid of death, is because she is unable to face up to the fact that death is a fact of life, and so she refuses to believe that she will die.

Sparko
08-30-2015, 12:57 PM
I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.

whag
08-30-2015, 01:34 PM
To clarify; are we asserting that the existence of suicide is proof that death is not universally feared?

No, I bring it up to show it doesn't fit neatly into some Christians' and Muslims' belief that all infidels fear a judgment.


Even the Bible itself portrays a few people as committing suicide (Zimri and Judas come to mind), for what it's worth.

That's a conundrum for the Christians who've asserted non-Christians fear a judgment.


And I'd agree that not everybody is afraid of death, but I don't think that a few exceptions disprove what could be a general principle.

In no way did I deny a general principle. The general principle stems from our enhanced contextualization of death thanks to higher cognition. Mammals, in general, like to stay alive. The smartest of mammals, even more so.

whag
08-30-2015, 01:35 PM
I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.

He said, forgetting he was healthy and alive.

JimL
08-30-2015, 02:05 PM
I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.
I fear the pain and suffering of dying more than I fear death itself. When you think about it, what is there in death itself to actually fear. Nothing, unless of course you believe in an after life of torture in hell, which I do not. When we are on our death bed, what we really fear is the prospect of losing our lives, which is not quite the same thing as fearing death.

Sparko
08-30-2015, 02:58 PM
He said, forgetting he was healthy and alive.
Actually I am not
I have not mentioned this publicly because it is nobody's business, but because of diabetes and some other problems I have end stage liver disease.

Without a transplant I will die, and in the meantime I could die at any moment due to various complications.

I have no fear of death because I know I am saved.

When you face something like me then come and tell me how you are not afraid to die.

So you were saying?

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 03:18 PM
Let's talk about death some more.

"and I want to get into that"


To help them grow,

Grow, thread, grow!


Anybody else notice the similarities? :smile:

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 03:23 PM
He said, forgetting he was healthy and alive.

That's quite some conclusion jumping, Whag.... perhaps you should inquire before snarking.


Just sayin

whag
08-30-2015, 03:24 PM
Actually I am not
I have not mentioned this publicly because it is nobody's business, but because of diabetes and some other problems I have end stage liver disease.

Without a transplant I will die, and in the meantime I could die at any moment due to various complications.

I have no fear of death because I know I am saved.

When you face something like me then come and tell me how you are not afraid to die.

So you were saying?

I'm glad you're at peace, Sparko. My aunt died of a brain tumor at the age of 54 and was at peace until the very end. She wasn't a Christian. Within the last five years, I've lost three friends, a Mormon, a Buddhist, and a very liberal Christian (who you would regard as too liberal). All accepted their fate and died with dignity.

Let's get back on topic now. Death has existed since life has existed. Do Christians who deny this fact ultimately have a problem with God being the inventor of death?

whag
08-30-2015, 03:28 PM
That's quite some conclusion jumping, Whag.... perhaps you should inquire before snarking.


Just sayin

Sparko originally said "I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive." That was a jumped-to conclusion, as he actually noticed no such thing.

Just sayin'.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 03:30 PM
Sparko originally said "I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive." That was a jumped-to conclusion, as he actually noticed no such thing.

Just sayin'.

meh

Sparko
08-30-2015, 03:52 PM
I'm glad you're at peace, Sparko. My aunt died of a brain tumor at the age of 54 and was at peace until the very end. She wasn't a Christian. Within the last five years, I've lost three friends, a Mormon, a Buddhist, and a very liberal Christian (who you would regard as too liberal). All accepted their fate and died with dignity.

Let's get back on topic now. Death has existed since life has existed. Do Christians who deny this fact ultimately have a problem with God being the inventor of death?
Deny what fact?

And the reason there is death is because mankind rebelled against God

But until you are faced with your own death you have no idea how you will react

Are you so sure there is no God that you are willing to bet your life on it?

I am not afraid to die because I know something better than this life awaits me

The best you can look forward is non existence or worse

whag
08-30-2015, 04:29 PM
Deny what fact?

Death has existed since life has existed.


And the reason there is death is because mankind rebelled against God

All living things has been dying for about 3.5 billion years before human beings.


But until you are faced with your own death you have no idea how you will react

I can't argue with that. We're all different.


Are you so sure there is no God that you are willing to bet your life on it?

We're both mammals who like persisting on the earth. I'd also seek treatment, just as you are doing, if my liver was failing.


I am not afraid to die because I know something better than this life awaits me

The best you can look forward is non existence or worse

All mammals want to live, and that's why you seek a new liver. We don't seek medical treatment during infirmity because we fear a religious judgment. Rather, we have a powerful survival drive.

37818
08-30-2015, 04:37 PM
Death has existed since life has existed.
Death was part of God's good creation.

. . . But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. . . . -- Genesis 2:17.

It was not until man [Adam] sinned that death became an enemy.

Whan, death is your enemy too.

whag
08-30-2015, 04:57 PM
Death was part of God's good creation.

. . . But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. . . . -- Genesis 2:17.

It was not until man [Adam] sinned that death became an enemy.

Whan, death is your enemy too.

Mossy doesn't believe that God invented death. That's what we're talking about here--the inability of some Christians to process that fact.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 05:29 PM
Mossy doesn't believe that God invented death.

I think this is pretty much a red herring. It's like saying God created dark. Dark is the absence of light, which God created. Death is the absences of life, which God created. :shrug:

JimL
08-30-2015, 06:20 PM
I think this is pretty much a red herring. It's like saying God created dark. Dark is the absence of light, which God created. Death is the absences of life, which God created. :shrug:

If death is an imposed punishment for disobedience to god, then only the imposer of the punishment can be responsible for its reality. You can argue that man deserved death, but you can't argue that man is its cause. In actuallity though, death is just a natural phenomenon.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 06:26 PM
If death is an imposed punishment for disobedience to god, then only the imposer of the punishment can be responsible for its reality.

Hmmmm... so I tell my kids "no ice cream if they don't finish their veggies", and I'm responsible for inventing "no ice cream". Cool!


You can argue that man deserved death, but you can't argue that man is its cause.

Um.... can you show me where I ever even attempted such an argument? :huh:

JimL
08-30-2015, 06:44 PM
Hmmmm... so I tell my kids "no ice cream if they don't finish their veggies", and I'm responsible for inventing "no ice cream". Cool!
Poor analogy CP. Ice cream exists whether you choose to reward your children with it or not. Death, at least according to the biblical tale, did not exist, until it was imposed as a punishment.



Um.... can you show me where I ever even attempted such an argument? :huh:
That man is the cause of death is implied in your argument, if not then who are you saying is the cause?

whag
08-30-2015, 07:30 PM
I think this is pretty much a red herring. It's like saying God created dark. Dark is the absence of light, which God created. Death is the absences of life, which God created. :shrug:

I read this three times, I'm still not sure what you're saying or how it's a red herring. I agree with you that death is nothing but the finitude of life. Mossy's view, as far as I can tell, is that human beings caused the finitude of life. She said, "There is death because of the fall of mankind." Obviously, that's not true.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp unless religion gets in the way.

Adrift
08-30-2015, 07:38 PM
Death was part of God's good creation.

. . . But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. . . . -- Genesis 2:17.

It was not until man [Adam] sinned that death became an enemy.

Whan, death is your enemy too.


I think this is pretty much a red herring. It's like saying God created dark. Dark is the absence of light, which God created. Death is the absences of life, which God created. :shrug:

It's interesting to note that both of these ideas are in accord with the Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, in his work Guide for the Perplexed. He points out that death is a negative property which does not require an agent, and yet these negative properties, are, in the end, "good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things".

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp146.htm

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 07:46 PM
Poor analogy CP.

From the ACE of poor analogies! :thumb:


Ice cream exists whether you choose to reward your children with it or not.

It didn't ALWAYS! :tongue:


Death, at least according to the biblical tale, did not exist, until it was imposed as a punishment.

Death is the absence of life. Like darkness, I really don't think it had to be "created".


That man is the cause of death is implied in your argument,

Yeah, you're gonna have to flesh that out. I already asked "can you show me where I ever even attempted such an argument?" Simply saying the same thing again is not answering the question.


if not then who are you saying is the cause?

I'm not. :shrug: I'm saying God is the giver of life! Just like God is the creator of light, not darkness.

Jichard
08-30-2015, 07:54 PM
I think this is pretty much a red herring. It's like saying God created dark. Dark is the absence of light, which God created. Death is the absences of life, which God created. :shrug:


Death is the absence of life. Like darkness, I really don't think it had to be "created".

[...]

I'm not. :shrug: I'm saying God is the giver of life! Just like God is the creator of light, not darkness.

First, it is not the case that death is the absence of life, since there are plenty of things that are neither alive nor dead. For example, rocks are neither alive nor dead. Same for pens.

Second, it is logically possible for some sort of deity to create dead organisms without creating living organisms, and thus create death without creating life. For example: make a dead single-cell organism.

whag
08-30-2015, 08:02 PM
It's interesting to note that both of these ideas are in accord with the Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, in his work Guide for the Perplexed. He points out that death is a negative property which does not require an agent, and yet these negative properties, are, in the end, "good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things".

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp146.htm

Moreover, it's illogical to imagine an environment in which that negative property doesn't exist. If such an imbalance were possible to maintain reality, then there's no reason the initial creation couldn't have been entirely positive, as well.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 08:02 PM
First, it is not the case that death is the absence of life, since there are plenty of things that are neither alive nor dead. For example, rocks are neither alive nor dead. Same for pens.

It never occurred to me that somebody might try to apply life or death to objects capable of either. That's a bit pedantic, I'd think.


Second, it is logically possible for some sort of deity to create dead organisms without creating living organisms, and thus create death without creating life. For example: make a dead single-cell organism.

:twitch:

whag
08-30-2015, 08:07 PM
First, it is not the case that death is the absence of life, since there are plenty of things that are neither alive nor dead. For example, rocks are neither alive nor dead. Same for pens.

Second, it is logically possible for some sort of deity to create dead organisms without creating living organisms, and thus create death without creating life. For example: make a dead single-cell organism.

Stars are a good example. They're not alive but we can't really call them dead. They serve as a great analogy for biological organisms: they are dynamic, eat and burn fuel, shed waste, and cease existing, just like all flora and fauna do.

JimL
08-30-2015, 08:07 PM
From the ACE of poor analogies! :thumb:



It didn't ALWAYS! :tongue:



Death is the absence of life. Like darkness, I really don't think it had to be "created".



Yeah, you're gonna have to flesh that out. I already asked "can you show me where I ever even attempted such an argument?" Simply saying the same thing again is not answering the question.



I'm not. :shrug: I'm saying God is the giver of life! Just like God is the creator of light, not darkness.

No matter how you define death, biblically speaking, death is not something that had relevance in this world until god made it so. Of course in my opinion that is a lot of fairy tale nonsense so I actualy agree with you that god is not the cause of death.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 08:21 PM
No matter how you define death, biblically speaking, death is not something that had relevance in this world until god made it so.

Well, death CERTAINLY had no relevance until God created LIFE! :smile:


Of course in my opinion that is a lot of fairy tale nonsense so I actualy agree with you that god is not the cause of death.

Yeah, so typically dishonest of you, Jim. Can you SHOW me where I argued that God is not the cause of death? I have repeatedly said that God created life.

This looks more and more like an attack on Mossy, so I think I'll leave you to your ignorant folly.

Adrift
08-30-2015, 08:28 PM
This looks more and more like an attack on Mossy.

Agreed. Don't you usually move personal attack threads to the Psycho Ward?

whag
08-30-2015, 08:31 PM
Agreed. Don't you usually move personal attack threads to the Psycho Ward?

You misquoted him. Cow Poke said that.

This is challenging the views of Sparko and Mossy that death was introduced by humankind.

Cow Poke
08-30-2015, 08:31 PM
Agreed. Don't you usually move personal attack threads to the Psycho Ward?

Some how, you managed to attribute my quote to 37818. :huh: But, yeah, great suggestion - I'll run it by the uppers. :smile:

Adrift
08-30-2015, 08:59 PM
Some how, you managed to attribute my quote to 37818. :huh:

Darn it, It has to do with the multi-quote function. In the previous iteration of TWeb, if you used the multi-quote feature it would only last for one post. Now it seems to stay on permanently until you go back and turn the feature off on each post you multi-quoted. I had previously used the multi-quote option for both you and BIBLE. When I quoted you the second time, I noticed that I was re-quoting you both again, so I manually deleted the previous quotes, but apparently deleted the wrong quote tag.

long story short, the multi-quote feature is broke.


But, yeah, great suggestion - I'll run it by the uppers. :smile:

:thumb:

Tassman
08-30-2015, 09:42 PM
Deny what fact?

The fact that all living things die.


And the reason there is death is because mankind rebelled against God

Nonsense! What you’re in effect saying is that “death” is retroactive, which is absurd. Many millions of species, e.g. the dinosaurs, went extinct long before the alleged sin of Adam brought death into the world. There have been five major extinction events alone.


But until you are faced with your own death you have no idea how you will react

It’s the pain of illness and dying which is mostly feared, not death itself…in my case at least. It’s best to deal with reality rather than live a lie by indulging in unsubstantiated escapist beliefs of eternal life.


Are you so sure there is no God that you are willing to bet your life on it?

Pretty much! Certainly the petty little gods of the world’s major religions are all too obviously idealized versions of Man, complete with their petty jealousies and desire for praise, to be taken seriously.


I am not afraid to die because I know something better than this life awaits me

I think you’re wrong.


The best you can look forward is non existence or worse
…”or worse”. :lmbo:

You lot just can’t help yourselves can you.

Darth Executor
08-30-2015, 10:09 PM
I contend that some Christians who can't process the fact that God, if he exists, invented death are themselves fearful of death and probably converted for that shallow reason. Some, not all.


Why is that a shallow reason?

Jichard
08-30-2015, 10:15 PM
Why is that a shallow reason?

Because fear of death does not make actually make it more likely that God exists. It's fallacious reasoning, an appeal to consequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)s where someone believes something because of the positive consequences they think belief will bring to them. It reduces theistic belief down to a selfish attempt to escape something one is scared of, like a child.

Darth Executor
08-30-2015, 10:17 PM
Stars are a good example. They're not alive but we can't really call them dead. They serve as a great analogy for biological organisms: they are dynamic, eat and burn fuel, shed waste, and cease existing, just like all flora and fauna do.

They also reproduce (http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/). You could probably make a decent argument that stars are, in fact, alive.

Darth Executor
08-30-2015, 10:23 PM
Because fear of death does not make actually make it more likely that God exists. It's fallacious reasoning, an appeal to consequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)s where someone believes something because of the positive consequences they think belief will bring to them. It reduces theistic belief down to a selfish attempt to escape something one is scared of, like a child.

You are telling me why it's not a logical proposition, but that's not what whag said or what I asked about. Shallow has nothing to do with truth or formal reasoning. A thing can be shallow and true and logically sound. It can also be deep and false. I want to know why whag thinks it's a shallow reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shallow?s=t


1.
of little depth; not deep:
shallow water.
2.
lacking depth; superficial:

Jichard
08-30-2015, 10:38 PM
You are telling me why it's not a logical proposition, but that's not what whag said or what I asked about. Shallow has nothing to do with truth or formal reasoning. A thing can be shallow and true and logically sound. It can also be deep and false. I want to know why whag thinks it's a shallow reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shallow?s=t

Already explained why it's shallow: it reduces theistic belief down to a selfish attempt to escape something one is scared of, like a child.

Now, if someone wants to be like a little kid who believes whatever makes them feel good, then they're engaged in shallow wish-fulfillment.

Darth Executor
08-30-2015, 10:42 PM
Already explained why it's shallow: it reduces theistic belief down to a selfish attempt to escape something one is scared of, like a child.

That doesn't really explain why it's shallow, though the explanation itself is, ironically, shallow.


Now, if someone wants to be like a little kid who believes whatever makes them feel good, then they're engaged in shallow wish-fulfillment.

There sure are a lot of little kids who look like adults running around. :ahem:

Tassman
08-31-2015, 02:32 AM
That doesn't really explain why it's shallow, though the explanation itself is, ironically, shallow.

Sure it does, it’s shallow in the sense of not exhibiting in depth serious thought; merely wish fulfilment i.e. (in psychology) the satisfaction of a desire through such processes as fantasising and neurotic symptoms.


There sure are a lot of little kids who look like adults running around. :ahem:

Certainly, although it’s decreasing rapidly. “Fifty-nine percent of Millennials who grew up in a Christian church drop out of it permanently or for an extended period of time, according to research by Barna Group. Among the most common reasons for leaving are Millennials’ beliefs that churches are shallow, anti-science, overprotective, and promote simplistic, judgmental views of sexuality..."

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2015/08/24/post-traumatic-church-syndrome-yep-its-a-thing/

Besides, your argument is a logical fallacy i.e. “Argumentum ad populum" which occurs when something is considered to be true solely because it is popular.

KingsGambit
08-31-2015, 04:10 AM
That's a conundrum for the Christians who've asserted non-Christians fear a judgment.
.

I can't speak for others but I don't have much time for viewpoints that assert that all people think the same way.

Sparko
08-31-2015, 06:15 AM
Death has existed since life has existed.



All living things has been dying for about 3.5 billion years before human beings.



I can't argue with that. We're all different.



We're both mammals who like persisting on the earth. I'd also seek treatment, just as you are doing, if my liver was failing.



All mammals want to live, and that's why you seek a new liver. We don't seek medical treatment during infirmity because we fear a religious judgment. Rather, we have a powerful survival drive.

Sure everyone wants to live. But to a Christian, death is more like immigrating to a better country where you won't see your friends and loved ones for a while, till they come over and join you. You are reluctant to go, but you know that a better life awaits you.

And the reason we use doctors and I am seeking treatment is that to Christians, life, especially human life (including our own) is precious and not to be squandered or tossed away. That is why Christians think suicide is wrong. So yes, I am seeking treatment. But if I don't get the treatment and die, I am not worried or scared.

1 Cor 15:When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

As far as death having existed for billions of years, I am speaking of human death. And views on how long death itself has been around various among Christians. There are theistic evolutionists, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, etc. All of those views fall within the scope of Christianity.

Sure some atheists are stubborn enough to not believe in God on their deathbeds, but I think a majority will try to hedge their bets at that last minute and pray to God. And I think the more blusterous they are about being atheist now, the more they actually have doubts and want to convince themselves more than anyone else. Like Tassman. At least you admit you are an agnostic. That's a good start.

Sparko
08-31-2015, 06:22 AM
The fact that all living things die.



Nonsense! What you’re in effect saying is that “death” is retroactive, which is absurd. Many millions of species, e.g. the dinosaurs, went extinct long before the alleged sin of Adam brought death into the world. There have been five major extinction events alone.



It’s the pain of illness and dying which is mostly feared, not death itself…in my case at least. It’s best to deal with reality rather than live a lie by indulging in unsubstantiated escapist beliefs of eternal life.



Pretty much! Certainly the petty little gods of the world’s major religions are all too obviously idealized versions of Man, complete with their petty jealousies and desire for praise, to be taken seriously.



I think you’re wrong.


…”or worse”. :lmbo:

You lot just can’t help yourselves can you.

Yep. sure sounds like you are trying to convince yourself there is no God, Tassman. Good luck with that.

whag
08-31-2015, 07:20 AM
Sure everyone wants to live. But to a Christian, death is more like immigrating to a better country where you won't see your friends and loved ones for a while, till they come over and join you. You are reluctant to go, but you know that a better life awaits you.

The inverse truth of your loved ones being damned would grieve you as much your being reunited with them would make you happy. Most people will be damned, according to Christianity, including Mormons, Muslims, liberal Christians, skeptics, etc.

If all your friends and loved ones are conservative Christians, you're a rare bird, indeed. Christianity actually teaches that the way is narrow.


And the reason we use doctors and I am seeking treatment is that to Christians, life, especially human life (including our own) is precious and not to be squandered or tossed away.

Not obtaining treatment wouldn't be squandering your life or tossing it away. It'd simply be letting the infirmity that God brought take its natural course. What makes you seek treatment is the very same survival drive that would make me seek treatment.

This is why you should never try to lamely stoke existential fear in non-Christians (Mormons, Muslims, etc) while expressing the survival drive yourself.


As far as death having existed for billions of years, I am speaking of human death.

Still not following you. Like all animals, human hominid ancestors also died. That's why we find their bones. There was no time in which human beings haven't died.

You should change your view that human beings caused death for that critical reason. Why BS yourself just because blatant epistemological error just so happens to "fall within the scope of Christianity"? Rick Warren falls within the scope of Christianity, too. Lots of stupid stuff does.


And views on how long death itself has been around various among Christians. There are theistic evolutionists, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, etc. All of those views fall within the scope of Christianity.

If any of those views assume human beings are responsible for human death, they are incorrect. That requires an unsustainable faith that defies what's evident in the natural history record.

Cow Poke
08-31-2015, 07:26 AM
Not obtaining treatment wouldn't be squandering your life or tossing it away. It'd simply be letting the infirmity that God brought take its natural course. What makes you seek treatment is the very same survival drive that would make me seek treatment.

This part intrigues me. If we are simply to "let the infirmity God brought take its natural course", then why did Jesus give sight to the man born blind, heal the man with the palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Peter and John heal the man with the crippled feet.....

We believe human life is precious. Even the unborn. I'm at MD Anderson in Houston right now with my wife for a followup for her breast cancer. Do you believe we should have "simply accepted" the fact that she would die without intervention?

Also, from the lobby where I'm posting, I can see numerous hospitals around me founded by religious institutions. Why? Because they think human life is precious.

shunyadragon
08-31-2015, 08:15 AM
I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.

I have known many atheists, agnostics and humanist non-believers who have shown no fear on the death bed, and one notable example of my brother James, who attended the Roman Church all his adult life, but when found this year to be terminally ill rejected religion and God, and rejected any religious ceremony in observance of his passing. He requested a non-religious wake, and cremation of his remains. My brother passed away peacefully knowing the end was at hand in July of this year, and expressing no regrets concerning his decisions.

What you describe is a common fear of death and death bed John Wayne conversion, but not everyone has this same experience.

Darth Executor
08-31-2015, 08:16 AM
Sure it does, it’s shallow in the sense of not exhibiting in depth serious thought; merely wish fulfilment i.e. (in psychology) the satisfaction of a desire through such processes as fantasising and neurotic symptoms.

lol, leave it to liberals to pathologize sanity and sanitize dysfunction. If you're afraid to die then beliefs that allow you to continue functioning normally are both entirely normal and an useful evolutionary trait. Between your and Jichard's posts I'm not the least bit surprised anymore that atheism is heavily dysgenic.


Certainly, although it’s decreasing rapidly. “Fifty-nine percent of Millennials who grew up in a Christian church drop out of it permanently or for an extended period of time, according to research by Barna Group. Among the most common reasons for leaving are Millennials’ beliefs that churches are shallow, anti-science, overprotective, and promote simplistic, judgmental views of sexuality..."

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2015/08/24/post-traumatic-church-syndrome-yep-its-a-thing/

Nothing to do with the subject, you don't need to be a Christian to believe in an afterlife.


Besides, your argument is a logical fallacy i.e. “Argumentum ad populum" which occurs when something is considered to be true solely because it is popular.

I actually haven't made that (or any other) argument, so how, exactly, I managed to commit a logical fallacy will remain a mystery for the ages.

Darth Executor
08-31-2015, 08:17 AM
Still not following you. Like all animals, human hominid ancestors also died. That's why we find their bones. There was no time in which human beings haven't died.


Well seeing how Adam and Eve died and they were the first humans this is true by all standards.

whag
08-31-2015, 08:29 AM
Well seeing how Adam and Eve died and they were the first humans this is true by all standards.

The first human beings evolved from a continuous line of mammals who all died.

Yes, you do have a bit of difficulty claiming that human beings introduced death if there was no period in which death wasn't a thing for mammals and all species of flora and fauna.

I'm interested in your view. Please explain what you believe so I don't have to guess and presume.

Darth Executor
08-31-2015, 08:42 AM
The first human beings evolved from a continuous line of mammals who all died.

Yes, you do have a bit of difficulty claiming that human beings introduced death if there was no period in which death wasn't a thing for mammals and all species of flora and fauna.

I'm interested in your view. Please explain what you believe so I don't have to guess and presume.

I don't think human beings introduced death for everything, just humans. I think Adam and Eve were the first humans, but there may have been biological humans who were not given the breath of God before them and conflating the two is a subsequent anachronism.

Sparko
08-31-2015, 08:53 AM
I have known many atheists, agnostics and humanist non-believers who have shown no fear on the death bed, and one notable example of my brother James, who attended the Roman Church all his adult life, but when found this year to be terminally ill rejected religion and God, and rejected any religious ceremony in observance of his passing. He requested a non-religious wake, and cremation of his remains. My brother passed away peacefully knowing the end was at hand in July of this year, and expressing no regrets concerning his decisions.

What you describe is a common fear of death and death bed John Wayne conversion, but not everyone has this same experience.I never claimed everyone has the same experience. And to me it sounds like your brother might have stopped believing out of anger that God would let him become terminally ill.

Both of my parents died of lung cancer and both were Christian. My mom died at home with us surrounding her and hospice taking care of her and reading the bible to her. She went peacefully and never once blamed God. My dad was in the hospital when he died and he took every opportunity to praise God and tell those around him that whatever comes he was ready. Even the doctors were impressed with his attitude.

whag
08-31-2015, 08:56 AM
I don't think human beings introduced death for everything, just humans. I think Adam and Eve were the first humans, but there may have been biological humans who were not given the breath of God before them and conflating the two is a subsequent anachronism.

That's a stretch of the word anachronism.

The problem for you is that we've discovered a significant blur between Cromags/Neanderthals and the first human beings, animists who deified nature (for obvious reasons) and made fertility statues like the Venus of Willendorf. To suggest a hard delineation between hominids like Cromags and Neanderthals and those given the "breath of God" (what does that mean? A soul?) is absurd. That disparages the struggles of those species and requires a faith literally informed by nothing but wishful thinking.

Darth Executor
08-31-2015, 09:06 AM
That's a stretch of the word anachronism.

The problem for you is that we've discovered a significant blur between Cromags/Neanderthals and the first human beings, animists who deified nature (for obvious reasons) and made fertility statues like the Venus of Willendorf. To suggest a hard delineation between hominids like Cromags and Neanderthals and those given the "breath of God" (what does that mean? A soul?) is absurd. That disparages the struggles of those species and requires a faith literally informed by nothing but wishful thinking.

That is not a problem for me, mostly because you don't understand what I'm saying. I was not talking about Cromags/Neandethals, I was talking about Homo Sapiens. I am leaning towards Homo Sapiens, as a biological organism, having evolved organically from more primitive hominids, and Adam and Eve being specially created (either directly from dirt or by modifying existing Sapiens stock). There is little (and possibly no) biological difference between the two but there is a huge spiritual difference (namely, that the latter have souls while the former did not, a divison that I suspect exists to this day). In other words, I am proposing that there are two types of Sapiens, biologically indistinguishable (at least for now), one without souls and descended from the animal kingdom and one with souls, descended from specially created Adam and Eve. This is also what I mean by anachronism, because the same humanity is retroactively applied to all Sapiens.

tabibito
08-31-2015, 09:07 AM
I don't think human beings introduced death for everything, just humans. I think Adam and Eve were the first humans, but there may have been biological humans who were not given the breath of God before them and conflating the two is a subsequent anachronism.
Romans 5:18
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

There is at least some justification for the claim.

tabibito
08-31-2015, 09:21 AM
That's a stretch of the word anachronism.

The problem for you is that we've discovered a significant blur between Cromags/Neanderthals and the first human beings, animists who deified nature (for obvious reasons) and made fertility statues like the Venus of Willendorf. To suggest a hard delineation between hominids like Cromags and Neanderthals and those given the "breath of God" (what does that mean? A soul?) is absurd. That disparages the struggles of those species and requires a faith literally informed by nothing but wishful thinking.

The chronology as laid down by the Bible is demonstrably wrong, and it only takes the unwarranted inclusion of a couple of begats to make is so ... I lean to the view that Adam and Eve (assuming they were not mythological) were H.s.sapiens - but ... nothing in the scriptural record definitively says as much. With the Bible's primary focus being the interaction between man and God, very little is said about other species, but the (one?) small piece available suggests that at least some animals have souls.

shunyadragon
08-31-2015, 10:11 AM
I never claimed everyone has the same experience. And to me it sounds like your brother might have stopped believing out of anger that God would let him become terminally ill.

Your suspicions are unfounded, and likely directed to justify your position. I knew my brother closely, he never expressed any anger in his 10 year+ cancer journey. In fact in all discussions with him he was at peace with his impending death. Between us well into our sixties we acknowledged death was the end of every ones journey regardless, and we both had lived a long and fruitful life. He commented that some just knew with more certainty when the end would come.

I am a Baha'i, but have remained close to the humanist UUs all my adult life. I have many friends around my age in their 60s and older, and none hat I know of have any misgivings about their humanist belief and death. A few at present are suffering from terminal ailments. I regularly visit them.

Sparko
08-31-2015, 10:25 AM
Your suspicions are unfounded, and likely directed to justify your position. I knew my brother closely, he never expressed any anger in his 10 year+ cancer journey. In fact in all discussions with him he was at peace with his impending death. Between us well into our sixties we acknowledged death was the end of every ones journey regardless, and we both had lived a long and fruitful life. He commented that some just knew with more certainty when the end would come.

10 years +?? But you said:
"but when found this year to be terminally ill rejected religion and God"

make up your mind, shunya.

whag
08-31-2015, 10:32 AM
10 years +?? But you said:
"but when found this year to be terminally ill rejected religion and God"

make up your mind, shunya.

The initial diagnosis of cancer isn't always terminal. Terminal means when the cancer spreads to the point of not being possible to reverse.

Sparko
08-31-2015, 10:36 AM
The initial diagnosis of cancer isn't always terminal. Terminal means when the cancer spreads to the point of not being possible to reverse.Well apparently he didn't give up his belief in God until he got that diagnosis this year, which was the point I was making about it sounding like him being angry that God would give him a terminal illness.

whag
08-31-2015, 10:42 AM
Well apparently he didn't give up his belief in God until he got that diagnosis this year, which was the point I was making about it sounding like him being angry that God would give him a terminal illness.

You make no sense. Why be angry at the news that you'd certainly be with The Lord soon?

Sparko
08-31-2015, 11:11 AM
You make no sense. Why be angry at the news that you'd certainly be with The Lord soon?I don't know his brother, that was just the feeling I got from reading what he wrote. Many people will end up angry with God at one time in their life or another. Most get over it. Some never do. Some of the most vocal atheists I have encountered claim they used to be Christians, and it is clear that they not only no longer believe in God, but have set out to destroy the faith of other Christians. We have some of those on tweb now and in the past but I am not going to mention names.

Matthew 13:18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

I am pretty much finished here, so I think I will unsubscribe. You know my opinion.

firstfloor
08-31-2015, 02:44 PM
The worst thing about Christian salvation is that it prevents the saved seeing the unsaved as equal. It is a type of apartheid tolerated by insiders because they take the view that anyone can join. To an outsider it looks like they took the bribe and are emotionally unable to deal with the prospect of their own death. The truth is that people have been dying successfully every since there were people and while nobody likes the idea of illness and incapacity we are all equally guaranteed the end of suffering in death.

KingsGambit
08-31-2015, 02:49 PM
The truth is that people have been dying successfully every since there were people and while nobody likes the idea of illness and incapacity we are all equally guaranteed the end of suffering in death.

How do you know this?

Cow Poke
08-31-2015, 02:56 PM
The worst thing about Christian salvation is that it prevents the saved seeing the unsaved as equal.

The worst thing about being a rescue swimmer is that it prevents the rescuer seeing the drowning as equal. :shrug:

firstfloor
08-31-2015, 03:15 PM
How do you know this?This is the thing that Christians don’t get. I think therefore I am. I think with my brain. I am my brain. Right now, my brain is talking to your brain. Brains need oxygen to live. When I stop breathing and my brain dies, so do I.

Cow Poke
08-31-2015, 03:16 PM
This is the thing that Christians don’t get. I think therefore I am. I think with my brain. I am my brain. Right now, my brain is talking to your brain. Brains need oxygen to live. When I stop breathing and my brain dies, so do I.

Actually, some Tweb posters appear to be pretty much brain dead, but they keep posting.

firstfloor
08-31-2015, 03:19 PM
The worst thing about being a rescue swimmer is that it prevents the rescuer seeing the drowning as equal. :shrug:I trust you appreciate that you are just making my point for me.

Cow Poke
08-31-2015, 03:19 PM
I trust you appreciate that you are just making my point for me.

I have no doubt you would love to believe that. :wink:

firstfloor
08-31-2015, 03:21 PM
Actually, some Tweb posters appear to be pretty much brain dead, but they keep posting.Is that a black arm band sort of thing going on there, CP?

Cow Poke
08-31-2015, 03:25 PM
Is that a black arm band sort of thing going on there, CP?

It is the Police recognition of, and respect to, a fallen officer and his/her family - a black band (in this case, with "the thin blue line" through it) across the officers badge or shield.

firstfloor
08-31-2015, 03:27 PM
I have no doubt you would love to believe that. :wink:I truly do. But, I was talking the other evening to a woman who lost her teenage child to cancer and although she had lost her Christian faith she still took comfort from the idea that she would meet her loved one again some day. I would not deny anyone that comfort. But I still object to the idea that that comfort costs anything.

shunyadragon
08-31-2015, 04:23 PM
10 years +?? But you said:
"but when found this year to be terminally ill rejected religion and God"

make up your mind, shunya.

No problem you do not know the whole story. He has been under treatment for cancer, beginning with Bladder Cancer for 10+ years. It was only early this year it found he was stage four cancer and would only have ~6 moths or so.

JimL
08-31-2015, 06:02 PM
Sure everyone wants to live. But to a Christian, death is more like immigrating to a better country where you won't see your friends and loved ones for a while, till they come over and join you. You are reluctant to go, but you know that a better life awaits you.

And the reason we use doctors and I am seeking treatment is that to Christians, life, especially human life (including our own) is precious and not to be squandered or tossed away. That is why Christians think suicide is wrong. So yes, I am seeking treatment. But if I don't get the treatment and die, I am not worried or scared.
But these are contradictory statements Sparko. If dying is nothing more than going to a better place, then why would christians consider earthly life to be so precious and be reluctant to go to this better place? I think the more honest reason for this reluctance of christians to die is that, and this is a fact, they just don't know for sure if what they have been taught to believe is true.



Sure some atheists are stubborn enough to not believe in God on their deathbeds, but I think a majority will try to hedge their bets at that last minute and pray to God. And I think the more blusterous they are about being atheist now, the more they actually have doubts and want to convince themselves more than anyone else. Like Tassman. At least you admit you are an agnostic. That's a good start.
Not believing has nothing to do with being stubborn, not believing has to do with being honest with oneself. Also, I think that even if there were a god, it would need be a good god in order for me to worship him, and the biblical god is certainly not what I would call good. The way I look at it is like this, if there is a god that is good, or if there is no god at all, then in either case there is nothing for anyone to fear of death.

whag
08-31-2015, 06:54 PM
How do you know this?

I think the more appropriate question is "what does 'dying successfully' even mean?"

How do you know that non-Christians are afraid of death because they fear being judged for not converting to a specific religion?

whag
08-31-2015, 07:09 PM
This part intrigues me. If we are simply to "let the infirmity God brought take its natural course", then why did Jesus give sight to the man born blind, heal the man with the palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Peter and John heal the man with the crippled feet.....

A more appropriate question would be "why didn't Jesus send them to a physician?" given that the physician's work is no less an expression of divine intervention in your view.


We believe human life is precious. Even the unborn.

Not really. Most conservative Christians are opposed to universal health care, meaning that you believe only some human life is precious.


I'm at MD Anderson in Houston right now with my wife for a followup for her breast cancer. Do you believe we should have "simply accepted" the fact that she would die without intervention?

No. I was making the inverse point that one can't assume all non-Christians are fearful of a judgment just because all people share an eons-old survival drive. That's as baseless as presuming Sparko and your wife fear death because they take extreme measures to survive.


Also, from the lobby where I'm posting, I can see numerous hospitals around me founded by religious institutions. Why? Because they think human life is precious.

I agree that some hospitals are religious and think that life is precious.

KingsGambit
08-31-2015, 07:19 PM
This is the thing that Christians don’t get. I think therefore I am. I think with my brain. I am my brain. Right now, my brain is talking to your brain. Brains need oxygen to live. When I stop breathing and my brain dies, so do I.

That doesn't even remotely answer my question.

Darth Executor
08-31-2015, 07:32 PM
The worst thing about Christian salvation is that it prevents the saved seeing the unsaved as equal. It is a type of apartheid tolerated by insiders because they take the view that anyone can join.

I don't see the problem. They're not equal.

Jichard
08-31-2015, 07:56 PM
lol, leave it to liberals to pathologize sanity and sanitize dysfunction. If you're afraid to die then beliefs that allow you to continue functioning normally are both entirely normal and an useful evolutionary trait.

First, please don't make up false claims about evolutionary biology.

Second, theistic beliefs don't keep one from dying.


Between your and Jichard's posts I'm not the least bit surprised anymore that atheism is heavily dysgenic.

Don't make up false claims.

Jichard
08-31-2015, 07:58 PM
That doesn't really explain why it's shallow, though the explanation itself is, ironically, shallow.

No, it actually does explain it. It's not my fault if you can't recognize shallow, childlike wishful thinking for what it is.


There sure are a lot of little kids who look like adults running around. :ahem:

^^^ That's shallow.

Let me know when you have something worthwhile to say, as opposed to shallow silliness.

Tassman
09-01-2015, 12:49 AM
Yep. sure sounds like you are trying to convince yourself there is no God, Tassman. Good luck with that.

How does this petty sneer address what I said? You asserted, without any substantive evidence, that "the reason there is death is because mankind rebelled against God”. What you’re in effect saying is that “death” is retroactive. Many millions of species, e.g. the dinosaurs, went extinct long before the alleged sin of Adam brought death into the world around 6,000 years ago. There have been five major extinction events alone. So, are you in fact saying that saying that “death” is retroactive?

Tassman
09-01-2015, 12:56 AM
Well seeing how Adam and Eve died and they were the first humans this is true by all standards.

Scientifically impossible. To argue this is to wantonly and deliberately spread lies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116858/bryan-college-forces-its-faculty-swear-historical-existence

whag
09-01-2015, 03:00 AM
That is not a problem for me, mostly because you don't understand what I'm saying. I was not talking about Cromags/Neandethals, I was talking about Homo Sapiens. I am leaning towards Homo Sapiens, as a biological organism, having evolved organically from more primitive hominids, and Adam and Eve being specially created (either directly from dirt or by modifying existing Sapiens stock).

"directly from dirt"? What are you talking about?


There is little (and possibly no) biological difference between the two

There was little biological difference between Neanderthals and CroMags. CroMags bred with Neanderthals (you have Neanderthal DNA). Your distinguishing CroMags' "stock" from modern humam beings is weird and unnecessary. They WERE anatomically modern.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon


but there is a huge spiritual difference (namely, that the latter have souls while the former did not, a divison that I suspect exists to this day). In other words, I am proposing that there are two types of Sapiens, biologically indistinguishable (at least for now), one without souls and descended from the animal kingdom and one with souls, descended from specially created Adam and Eve.

No such modern hominids existed that didn't exhibit the characteristics of human beings with "souls." You must present evidence of anatomically modern human beings who *didn't* have culture, cave art, sophisticated blade production skills, and animistic tendencies. Good luck with that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

Again, there is no hard delineation between hominids with and without "souls." The line is significantly blurred between 200,000 and 30,000 y.a. when Neanderthals went extinct and fertility statues were being carved.

Sparko
09-01-2015, 05:29 AM
This is the thing that Christians don’t get. I think therefore I am. I think with my brain. I am my brain. Right now, my brain is talking to your brain. Brains need oxygen to live. When I stop breathing and my brain dies, so do I.
Your brain died long ago. It is self-evident.

Roy
09-01-2015, 05:30 AM
Scientifically impossible. To argue this is to wantonly and deliberately spread lies.It's not a lie if he actually believes it, only a falsehood.

Sparko
09-01-2015, 05:32 AM
But these are contradictory statements Sparko. If dying is nothing more than going to a better place, then why would christians consider earthly life to be so precious and be reluctant to go to this better place? I think the more honest reason for this reluctance of christians to die is that, and this is a fact, they just don't know for sure if what they have been taught to believe is true.



Not believing has nothing to do with being stubborn, not believing has to do with being honest with oneself. Also, I think that even if there were a god, it would need be a good god in order for me to worship him, and the biblical god is certainly not what I would call good. The way I look at it is like this, if there is a god that is good, or if there is no god at all, then in either case there is nothing for anyone to fear of death.

The problem is not with God being good, it is with us being bad. That is why we need Jesus.

firstfloor
09-01-2015, 11:33 AM
That doesn't even remotely answer my question.Strictly, your question was “how do you know this” and this indeed is how I know it. You might actually be asking how I would convince you but I would really have to know, in that case, what evidence would convince you on which specific issue.

firstfloor
09-01-2015, 11:51 AM
Your brain died long ago. It is self-evident.There’s definitely a mean streak in there Sparko. A slightly more charitable disposition would do us both a lot of good.

Sparko
09-01-2015, 12:09 PM
There’s definitely a mean streak in there Sparko. A slightly more charitable disposition would do us both a lot of good.When you stop being a troll, come talk to me about it.

whag
09-01-2015, 12:13 PM
When you stop being a troll, come talk to me about it.
An eye for an eye shouldn't be part of your ethical arsenal right now. It conveys the exact opposite of being at peace.

Jedidiah
09-01-2015, 12:14 PM
Scientifically impossible. To argue this is to wantonly and deliberately spread lies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116858/bryan-college-forces-its-faculty-swear-historical-existence
Decorum:
We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. In order to substantiate a lie, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. All efforts to substantiate an accusation of lying should take place in the same post as the accusation or a separate thread may be started in the Psychotherapy Room outlining the accusation and providing substantiation.

All subsequent discussion of the accusation must take place in the Psychotherapy Room. Please note that one person's faith position may inform their opinion of the acts or faiths of another - in stating positions of faith, allegations of lying are not appropriate.

Sparko
09-01-2015, 12:16 PM
An eye for an eye shouldn't be part of your ethical arsenal right now. It conveys the exact opposite of being at peace.I wasn't doing an eye for an eye. I was commenting on how idiotic FF's post are. Seems brain dead to me. And thanks for playing nanny. We all appreciate it. :ahem:

firstfloor
09-01-2015, 12:41 PM
When you stop being a troll, come talk to me about it.What is a troll in your expert opinion? What it is that I do that you think is trolling. For example, do you think that I deliberately set out to upset or harass other Twebbers? Do you think that anyone who disagrees with Sparko is an idiot? Am I too rough with the lady Christians?

Sparko
09-01-2015, 12:52 PM
What is a troll in your expert opinion? What it is that I do that you think is trolling. For example, do you think that I deliberately set out to upset or harass other Twebbers?
Yes, you do. You make the most idiotic comments in your posts, just to get a reaction from someone, while pretending to be all polite about it. You are a troll by any standard.

Examples are your idiotic troll about how to kill your God for Easter and your thread about Death. Just there to insult theists and get a reaction from them. Trolling.

firstfloor
09-01-2015, 01:42 PM
Yes, you do. You make the most idiotic comments in your posts, just to get a reaction from someone, while pretending to be all polite about it. You are a troll by any standard.

Examples are your idiotic troll about how to kill your God for Easter and your thread about Death. Just there to insult theists and get a reaction from them. Trolling.I can’t be pretending to be polite if I am actually being polite. Anyway, do you think the purpose of this particular forum is for atheists to be nice to Christians or does it tackle controversial subjects? I have said before that people are generally entitled to respect but their ideas are open to challenge and ought to be challenged – let the fittest ideas demonstrate their fitness and the weak perish. You can see as well as I can, if you follow the news at all, how dangerous runaway religious ideas can be (Palmyra destroyed).

Jichard
09-01-2015, 05:49 PM
I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.

You're engaged is a silly appeal to fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear), where you try to scare atheists about a deity's punishment in an afterlife. This is silly, since you should know that atheists don't believe that deity exists. So your appeal to fear would be as meaningful to atheists as threatening atheists with punishment from Voldemort or the Tooth Fairy after they die.

Also, by your own standards, you're a troll, since you're making "idiotic comments" in order to provoke a reaction in atheists.



Yes, you do. You make the most idiotic comments in your posts, just to get a reaction from someone, while pretending to be all polite about it. You are a troll by any standard.

Examples are your idiotic troll about how to kill your God for Easter and your thread about Death. Just there to insult theists and get a reaction from them. Trolling.
Your "idiotic" appeal to fear isn't working.

Sparko
09-01-2015, 05:55 PM
You're engaged is a silly appeal to fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear), where you try to scare atheists about a deity's punishment in an afterlife. This is silly, since you should know that atheists don't believe that deity exists. So your appeal to fear would be as meaningful to atheists as threatening atheists with punishment from Voldemort or the Tooth Fairy after they die.

Also, by your own standards, you're a troll, since you're making "idiotic comments" in order to provoke a reaction in atheists.



Your "idiotic" appeal to fear isn't working.
That's because the point I was making flew right over your head

I wasn't trying to scare anyone or make an appeal to fear :doh:

Jichard
09-01-2015, 06:01 PM
That's because the point I was making flew right over your head

I wasn't trying to scare anyone or make an appeal to fear :doh:


I notice all the atheists who claim they are not afraid of death are healthy and alive.

Talk to us again when you are on your deathbed or facing a terminal disease.

Oliver Sacks.
Christopher Hitchens.

Once again, please stop wasting my time with silly appeals to fear.

whag
09-01-2015, 06:31 PM
Oliver Sacks.
Christopher Hitchens.

Once again, please stop wasting my time with silly appeals to fear.

Thomas Paine
Charles Darwin
Robert Ingersoll
Frank Zappa
Carl Sagan
An endless list of non-Christian and atheist men who enlisted to fight wars in which death was almost certain

whag
09-01-2015, 06:57 PM
That's because the point I was making flew right over your head

I wasn't trying to scare anyone or make an appeal to fear :doh:

Yes you were. It's an old Christian tactic, going back to Jesus. It was particularly successful during The Great Awakening.

Read Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

JimL
09-01-2015, 08:07 PM
The problem is not with God being good, it is with us being bad. That is why we need Jesus.

No, we are all sinners/bad remember, the problem with the christians god, among other things in my opinion, such as his non-existence, is that he is not, as it is claimednot the ground of all that is good. He is a jealous and wrathful tyrant, unmerciful, lacks empathy for the imperfections of his so called children, and murders them that it is claimed he loves. Not because they are immoral, but rather because they simply don't believe he exists. The problem is that he is bad, by every standard by which we would judge each other, but excuses are made for these immoral characteristics because the very act of objecvtively acknowledging them would loose you from your self imposed trance like state.

Tassman
09-01-2015, 08:36 PM
Decorum:
We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. In order to substantiate a lie, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. All efforts to substantiate an accusation of lying should take place in the same post as the accusation or a separate thread may be started in the Psychotherapy Room outlining the accusation and providing substantiation.

All subsequent discussion of the accusation must take place in the Psychotherapy Room. Please note that one person's faith position may inform their opinion of the acts or faiths of another - in stating positions of faith, allegations of lying are not appropriate.

'Evolution' is considered factual beyond reasonable doubt by virtually the entire scientific community, end of story.

Darth Executor
09-01-2015, 08:56 PM
"directly from dirt"? What are you talking about?

I am talking about God shaping a mound of dirt in the rough shape of a human then morphing it into a living human.


There was little biological difference between Neanderthals and CroMags. CroMags bred with Neanderthals (you have Neanderthal DNA). Your distinguishing CroMags' "stock" from modern humam beings is weird and unnecessary. They WERE anatomically modern.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

:duh: Are you retarded? I just told you I was not talking about Neanderthals and CroMags. The two I am talking about are the two types of homo sapiens I hypothesized, one with a soul and the other without. Stop bringing them up, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.


No such modern hominids existed that didn't exhibit the characteristics of human beings with "souls." You must present evidence of anatomically modern human beings who *didn't* have culture, cave art, sophisticated blade production skills, and animistic tendencies. Good luck with that.

On the contrary, there are plenty who still exhibit this characteristic. Culture, art, blade production and animistic tendencies have nothing to do with it. The sole visible difference (right now) is that they cannot comprehend sentience and are otherwise high functioning automatons (this is what modern science claims we all are) indistinguishable from other humans. Such soulless individuals need not even be atheist, they could simply be automatons who incorporate religious acts into their routine.

Darth Executor
09-01-2015, 08:58 PM
Scientifically impossible. To argue this is to wantonly and deliberately spread lies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116858/bryan-college-forces-its-faculty-swear-historical-existence

Unfortunately it's not scientifically impossible for you to be a retard who can't even follow a simple conversation.

Tassman
09-01-2015, 09:21 PM
Unfortunately it's not scientifically impossible for you to be a retard who can't even follow a simple conversation.

Oh, I thought you claimed that "Adam and Eve were the first humans", did I misunderstand you? It's scientifically impossible that they were the first humans, as my link illustrated.


I am talking about God shaping a mound of dirt in the rough shape of a human then morphing it into a living human.

:lmbo:

37818
09-01-2015, 09:32 PM
Oh, I thought you claimed that "Adam and Eve were the first humans", did I misunderstand you? It's scientifically impossible that they were the first humans, as my link illustrated.



:lmbo: Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

whag
09-01-2015, 09:41 PM
:duh: Are you retarded? I just told you I was not talking about Neanderthals and CroMags. The two I am talking about are the two types of homo sapiens I hypothesized, one with a soul and the other without. Stop bringing them up, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

It was pretty obvious why I brought them up again. There's no need to hypothesize an anatomically modern hominid when an empirically verifiable anatomically modern hominid, CroMag, existed. Though slightly more cumbersome, Neanderthal would've served that purpose, as well. You make your faith harder to maintain with this nonsense by needing to invent another biological stock for this purpose. What makes the empirically verified species inadequate for the ensoulment?



On the contrary, there are plenty who still exhibit this characteristic. Culture, art, blade production and animistic tendencies have nothing to do with it. The sole visible difference (right now) is that they cannot comprehend sentience and are otherwise high functioning automatons (this is what modern science claims we all are) indistinguishable from other humans. Such soulless individuals need not even be atheist, they could simply be automatons who incorporate religious acts into their routine.

All the more reason why you needn't hypothesize a separate anatomically modern hominid sufficient for ensoulment. The world had plenty of these brute "automatons" available for "modifying" (your gerund). There's no need to shoehorn an unnecessary species into the picture. If there is, explain why.

I can't tell if you're serious about the mound of dirt being shaped into the first man. If you are, you burden yourself in feeling obligated (even if just partially) to believe something that was never meant to be taken literally.

JimL
09-01-2015, 09:42 PM
Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

Is there no depth of the ludicrous to which defenders of the faith will not descend in its defense. First off you are making it up. Second, such a notion is neither taught nor is it in the bible.

whag
09-01-2015, 09:42 PM
Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

Because the DNA contains evidence of a history--genes for tails turned off, for instance.

37818
09-01-2015, 10:15 PM
Because the DNA contains evidence of a history--genes for tails turned off, for instance.

Evidence of a history or basic coding found in most all animal life. The switchs determining how the code will be used. Such as bird beaks and the human jaw. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Darth Executor
09-01-2015, 10:36 PM
It was pretty obvious why I brought them up again. There's no need to hypothesize an anatomically modern hominid when an empirically verifiable anatomically modern hominid, CroMag, existed. Though slightly more cumbersome, Neanderthal would've served that purpose, as well. You make your faith harder to maintain with this nonsense by needing to invent another biological stock for this purpose. What makes the empirically verified species inadequate for the ensoulment?

I already explained what: the soulless likely still exist in modern human stock, so whether the divergence showed up in pre-humans is irrelevant and an unnecessary complication of a concept that is apparently already difficult to get across.


All the more reason why you needn't hypothesize a separate anatomically modern hominid sufficient for ensoulment. The world had plenty of these brute "automatons" available for "modifying" (your gerund). There's no need to shoehorn an unnecessary species into the picture. If there is, explain why.

If the soulless still exist today then saying "neanderthals were ensouled" doesn't quite cover it since there are no neanderthals left. My theory was not originally created in an effort to harmonize genesis with evolutionary theory (that's just a nice side-effect). I originally formulated it after observing and engaging in discussions on free will. If it turns out to be true I'll end up being pretty much a modern Darwin. Its obvious relation to our origins became apparent afterwards, but that application was derived from the original, not the other way around.


I can't tell if you're serious about the mound of dirt being shaped into the first man. If you are, you burden yourself in feeling obligated (even if just partially) to believe something that was never meant to be taken literally.

I feel no need to believe it literally, my model simply does not require evolution so it remains as an option.

whag
09-01-2015, 10:44 PM
Evidence of a history or basic coding found in most all animal life. The switchs determining how the code will be used. Such as bird beaks and the human jaw. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Evidence of history. There's a reason atavisms in primates would never be expressed in a bird beak. We don't share a common ancestor with birds.

whag
09-01-2015, 11:49 PM
I already explained what: the soulless likely still exist in modern human stock, so whether the divergence showed up in pre-humans is irrelevand and an unnecessary complication of a concept that is apparently already difficult to get across.

What does "soulless likely still exist" mean or have anything to do with it?

We're not talking about "divergence" but a simple biological stock sufficient to be ensouled. You're complicating it by imagining an unknown, undiscovered species.



If the soulless still exist today then saying "neanderthals were ensouled" doesn't quite cover it since there are no neanderthals left.

What does "if the soulless still exist today" mean or have anything to do with the discussion?


My theory was not originally created in an effort to harmonize genesis with evolutionary theory (that's just a nice side-effect). I originally formulated it after observing and engaging in discussions on free will. If it turns out to be true I'll end up being pretty much a modern Darwin.

It's not a theory but a hypothesis. Theories are frameworks that tie consilient lines of evidence to together.


I feel no need to believe it literally, my model simply does not require evolution so it remains as an option.

If that's your model, then ANY non-evolutionary explanation is an option. You mentioned "man from a mound of dirt" specifically because it's biblical and the only non evolutionary option.

Darth Executor
09-02-2015, 12:40 AM
What does "soulless likely still exist" mean or have anything to do with it?

We're not talking about "divergence" but a simple biological stock sufficient to be ensouled. You're complicating it by imagining an unknown, undiscovered species.

1 - soulless humans evolve
2 - God creates Adam and Eve.
3 - Adam and Eve are thrown out of Eden
4 - Adam and Eve's descendants intermarry with soulless humans.
5 - Their descendants can inherit souls and slowly spread all over the world.

We now have two types of humans, those descended from Adam and Eve, with souls, and the rest, without.

Are you getting what I'm saying now?


What does "if the soulless still exist today" mean or have anything to do with the discussion?

See above.


It's not a theory but a hypothesis. Theories are frameworks that tie consilient lines of evidence to together.

It's what I'm doing.


If that's your model, then ANY non-evolutionary explanation is an option. You mentioned "man from a mound of dirt" specifically because it's biblical and the only non evolutionary option.

Yes, so? I don't need to believe every alternative is possible, nor do I, nor do you.

tabibito
09-02-2015, 12:47 AM
Tut. If you consider the Biblical accounts wholly valid - everyone is descended from Noah ... so there would be no-one now who was not descended from Adam and Eve.

Darth Executor
09-02-2015, 01:12 AM
Tut. If you consider the Biblical accounts wholly valid - everyone is descended from Noah ... so there would be no-one now who was not descended from Adam and Eve.

1. I don't believe in a worldwide flood but I haven't really given the issue much thought.
2. I said "can inherit souls", not "will inherit souls" so being one of their descendants would not guarantee it.

Tassman
09-02-2015, 03:18 AM
Explain how the DNA evidence makes it impossible for a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch?

The evidence does not support the notion of a pair of first humans to have been built from scratch.

"the calculation by evolutionary geneticists that the smallest size the population of humans could have experienced when it spread from Africa throughout the world was about 2250 individuals. That comes from back-calculating the minimum size of a human group that could have given rise to the extensive genetic diversity present today in non-African humans. Further, that figure is based on conservative assumptions and is very likely to be an underestimate."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116858/bryan-college-forces-its-faculty-swear-historical-existence

Sparko
09-02-2015, 05:15 AM
Oliver Sacks.
Christopher Hitchens.

Once again, please stop wasting my time with silly appeals to fear.

OK let me talk r-e-a-l s-l-o-w for you.

I was commenting that it is easy to be sure of your convictions that there is no God when you are healthy and have no need for God. A lot of people turn to God only when they are faced with very tough life situations, like serious health problems, the death of loved ones, losing your job and home, being responsible for something that makes you feel very guilty, etc. When you become desperate, you have a harder time being so convinced their is no God, and will hedge your bets. You will try to bargain with God, or ask for help or forgiveness.

It is like death itself to a young person. They know what death is, but it is an abstract idea to them, and not personal. It is easy for them to dismiss or put in the back of their heads that one day they will die. You seem like such a person. Are you young?

Now I will stop wasting your time, since I already said I was going to leave this thread because I said all I wanted to. You can disagree all you want, but until you are faced with such situations, you really have no idea how you will react. But God is there and waiting for you to turn to him. It is never too late while you are alive. I was an atheist for much of my younger life, and as I got older I became an agnostic. I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old. So I pretty much understand your point of view, but you really don't understand mine.

Sparko
09-02-2015, 05:20 AM
No, we are all sinners/bad remember, the problem with the christians god, among other things in my opinion, such as his non-existence, is that he is not, as it is claimednot the ground of all that is good. He is a jealous and wrathful tyrant, unmerciful, lacks empathy for the imperfections of his so called children, and murders them that it is claimed he loves. Not because they are immoral, but rather because they simply don't believe he exists. The problem is that he is bad, by every standard by which we would judge each other, but excuses are made for these immoral characteristics because the very act of objecvtively acknowledging them would loose you from your self imposed trance like state.You will be judged not because you don't think he doesn't exist, but because you have sinned. The only difference between you and me is that I am forgiven for my sins because I asked Jesus to forgive me. You can't do that if you don't believe. But that is not what we are judged on, we are judged on our trespasses.

At least try to understand Christianity so you can argue against it correctly instead of constantly burning straw. Your arguments are a joke.

whag
09-02-2015, 07:25 AM
1 - soulless humans evolve
2 - God creates Adam and Eve.
3 - Adam and Eve are thrown out of Eden
4 - Adam and Eve's descendants intermarry with soulless humans.
5 - Their descendants can inherit souls and slowly spread all over the world.

We now have two types of humans, those descended from Adam and Eve, with souls, and the rest, without.

Are you getting what I'm saying now?

Yes, because you finally detailed your dodgy hypothesis.

1. OK
2. OK
3. OK
4. Do the soulless speak a language?
5. "Can" inherit souls or *do* inherit souls?




It's what I'm doing.

No it's not. Like I said, theories exist to explain many lines of evidence. You're doing the equivalent of yammering after a big bong rip.

Darth Executor
09-02-2015, 06:10 PM
Yes, because you finally detailed your dodgy hypothesis.

1. OK
2. OK
3. OK
4. Do the soulless speak a language?
5. "Can" inherit souls or *do* inherit souls?


4. Yes. They are almost indistinguishable from people with souls. They simply cannot comprehend sentience (because they have no sense of self) so they can be recognized by their ability to accept physical explanations for sentience (since their sentience really is just a highly complex machine).
5. Can. It might be do, but I don't know.



No it's not. Like I said, theories exist to explain many lines of evidence. You're doing the equivalent of yammering after a big bong rip.

Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t): a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Tassman
09-02-2015, 06:42 PM
4. Yes. They are almost indistinguishable from people with souls. They simply cannot comprehend sentience (because they have no sense of self) so they can be recognized by their ability to accept physical explanations for sentience (since their sentience really is just a highly complex machine).
5. Can. It might be do, but I don't know.

Where’s your evidence that souls even exist or that the mind is separate from the brain. Answer, there’s no credible evidence. This is all pure conjecture based upon wishful thinking in a vain attempt to support a rickety belief-system which is well past its “use by” date.


Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t): a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation,

in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The primary definition of “theory” is: “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena”…from your own link.

So, where are your “coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct” for the existence of souls? Answer, there aren't any apart from anecdotal evidence.


You will be judged not because you don't think he doesn't exist, but because you have sinned. The only difference between you and me is that I am forgiven for my sins because I asked Jesus to forgive me. You can't do that if you don't believe. But that is not what we are judged on, we are judged on our trespasses.

At least try to understand Christianity so you can argue against it correctly instead of constantly burning straw. Your arguments are a joke.

Just listen to yourself.

This is your totally unsupported belief system, there's no reason for me to believe such stuff. I think you'e living a lie.

Jichard
09-02-2015, 07:12 PM
Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t): a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19


"Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

[...]

Theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.

[...]

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations."

JimL
09-02-2015, 08:02 PM
You will be judged not because you don't think he doesn't exist, but because you have sinned. The only difference between you and me is that I am forgiven for my sins because I asked Jesus to forgive me. You can't do that if you don't believe. But that is not what we are judged on, we are judged on our trespasses.

At least try to understand Christianity so you can argue against it correctly instead of constantly burning straw. Your arguments are a joke.

It amounts to the same thing. Why would anyone ask forgiveness, and why would god expect anyone to ask for forgiveness, from an entity they don't believe to exist. What do you think your god is stupid?

whag
09-02-2015, 09:48 PM
You will be judged not because you don't think he doesn't exist, but because you have sinned. The only difference between you and me is that I am forgiven for my sins because I asked Jesus to forgive me. You can't do that if you don't believe. But that is not what we are judged on, we are judged on our trespasses.

At least try to understand Christianity so you can argue against it correctly instead of constantly burning straw. Your arguments are a joke.

Enculturated penitent Muslims and Mormons have faith and are still damned. It's not that skeptics disagree with temperance and self control. It's rather the inconsistency of your sotoriology that's too bizarre to accept.

Religious people with faith who are penitent are damned. That's weird.

Darth Executor
09-02-2015, 11:59 PM
Where’s your evidence that souls even exist or that the mind is separate from the brain. Answer, there’s no credible evidence. This is all pure conjecture based upon wishful thinking in a vain attempt to support a rickety belief-system which is well past its “use by” date.

I'm using "soul" as a proxy for sentience. It's a sense. If you don't have it (and you don't), you don't. It's like explaining sight to a person who's never been able to see. To you it doesn't exist. The evidence is that some people have it while others do not.



So, where are your “coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct” for the existence of souls? Answer, there aren't any apart from anecdotal evidence.

Data is just a collection of anecdotes in the first place, of which I have legion. One need only go through a tread about sentience here or on another forum to notice there is an obvious disparity between the way some people view sentience. That's because we don't all experience the same sentience (or rather, we don't all experience sentience, period.

Tassman
09-03-2015, 03:03 AM
I'm using "soul" as a proxy for sentience. It's a sense. If you don't have it (and you don't), you don't. It's like explaining sight to a person who's never been able to see. To you it doesn't exist. The evidence is that some people have it while others do not.

“Sentience” and “soul” are not interchangeable…unless you’re arguing that all creatures have eternal souls, which I doubt. Sentience just means able to perceive or feel things.

Re the bolded, you just can't help yourself can you?


Data is just a collection of anecdotes in the first place, of which I have legion. One need only go through a tread about sentience here or on another forum to notice there is an obvious disparity between the way some people view sentience. That's because we don't all experience the same sentience (or rather, we don't all experience sentience, period.

No it’s not. "Data" are facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis, whereas “anecdotes” are merely short accounts of an incident or event.

tabibito
09-03-2015, 05:51 AM
A: "John's on the wagon."
B: "I saw John drinking a beer in the pub only an hour ago."
A: "Ah - that's just anecdotal evidence" ... which is to say it is worthless information indicative of nothing.
Failing all other avenues of escape, any piece of reported data can be hand waved away as nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Sparko
09-03-2015, 06:15 AM
Enculturated penitent Muslims and Mormons have faith and are still damned. It's not that skeptics disagree with temperance and self control. It's rather the inconsistency of your sotoriology that's too bizarre to accept.

Religious people with faith who are penitent are damned. That's weird.

why?

If there is a wide river that must be crossed and I have a way across that is a well-built bridge, and you have one that is a diving board strapped to one side that will never get anyone across, it doesn't matter how much faith your followers have compared to mine.

whag
09-03-2015, 09:49 AM
why?

It's weird because you present it as simple, but it clearly isn't. The penitent faithful who meet the criteria that you laid out get tormented forever for their beliefs inculcated by enculturation.


If there is a wide river that must be crossed and I have a way across that is a well-built bridge, and you have one that is a diving board strapped to one side that will never get anyone across, it doesn't matter how much faith your followers have compared to mine.

Deep enculturation renders their religion sufficient to them. God should be able to comprehend the effects of being raised Mormon and not send that penitent and faithful person to hell. That's hideous.

Darth Executor
09-03-2015, 10:30 AM
“Sentience” and “soul” are not interchangeable…unless you’re arguing that all creatures have eternal souls, which I doubt. Sentience just means able to perceive or feel things.

So robots are sentient now?


Re the bolded, you just can't help yourself can you?

That's what the data says. :nsm: I mean, right before you whine you prove my point, namely that you have no innate sense of self which is why you think "all creatures" have it. Because you're a machine of flesh, not a sentient being.



No it’s not. "Data" are facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis, whereas “anecdotes” are merely short accounts of an incident or event.

"facts and statistics" are anecdotes. Multiple anecdotes collected together form data.

firstfloor
09-03-2015, 02:05 PM
It's weird ............. That's hideous.True.

In you ever find yourself at the pearly gates remember the prodigal son defence which has a pretty good chance of working unless Sparko happens to be on sentry duty.

Of course, the reason that Christians don’t like this option (seeing is believing) and preach that salvation is impossible after death (why?) is that they want your obedience (and your money) in this world, not the next.

Jichard
09-03-2015, 03:18 PM
OK let me talk r-e-a-l s-l-o-w for you.

I was commenting that it is easy to be sure of your convictions that there is no God when you are healthy and have no need for God. A lot of people turn to God only when they are faced with very tough life situations, like serious health problems, the death of loved ones, losing your job and home, being responsible for something that makes you feel very guilty, etc. When you become desperate, you have a harder time being so convinced their is no God, and will hedge your bets. You will try to bargain with God, or ask for help or forgiveness.

Oliver Sacks, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin (though some Christians like to lie and say Darwin had a dath-bed conversion), etc.

Once again, please stop wasting my time with your silly appeals to fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear).


It is like death itself to a young person. They know what death is, but it is an abstract idea to them, and not personal. It is easy for them to dismiss or put in the back of their heads that one day they will die. You seem like such a person. Are you young?

You were already given examples of elderly people who were atheists and died as atheists in relatively old age. So there's no need for you to continue to act otherwise. And I'm not particularly in your evidence-free attempts at psychoanalyzing me. All you're doing is making whatever claims about me you think best fit with your religiously-motivated ideology.


"No Atheists in Foxholes: Motivated Reasoning and Religious Belief"
static.squarespace.com/static/5014cf5ce4b006ef411a1485/t/5044073ce4b0991b726a57f1/1346635580839/


"Recent research has focused on motivational bases of political ideology. It is plausible that similar factors may drive the formation of religious ideology. Though explanations of the existence of religious beliefs in terms of their satisfaction of psychological needs date back centuries, limited empirical research exists linking motivated reasoning to religious belief. I thoroughly review existing research on the role of motivation in the formation of religious belief systems, specifically research related to the relationship between fear of death and afterlife belief. Then I present the results of two original, experimental studies investigating the hypothesis that fear of death leads to greater religious belief. In Study 1, participants who were asked to write short essays about death reported greater belief in an afterlife than did participants who wrote essays on a neutral topic. Study 2 replicated this finding and also showed that increased fear of death leads to greater belief in God [emphasis added]. The results of the studies suggest that a more parsimonious motivated reasoning account may explain the relationship between fear of death and afterlife belief better than one based on Terror Management Theory. Taken together, findings support the notion that some religious beliefs can be usefully explained in motivational terms."

You also seem to be operating under the illusion that atheists will undergo death-bed conversions due to fear of death. Which is rather ironic, since it's religious folks who tend to be more afraid of death


Now I will stop wasting your time, since I already said I was going to leave this thread because I said all I wanted to. You can disagree all you want, but until you are faced with such situations, you really have no idea how you will react. But God is there and waiting for you to turn to him. It is never too late while you are alive. I was an atheist for much of my younger life, and as I got older I became an agnostic. I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old. So I pretty much understand your point of view, but you really don't understand mine.

Used to be a Christian. And you're wrong: I do understand your fear-motivated reasoning. I just grew out of it when I stopped being a child. Fear of death, fear of punishment in the afterlife, etc. are not good reasons for being a Christian. Even many Christians can admit that. So why are you trying to use appeals to fear of death, fear of afterlife punishment, etc. against atheists? This is especially silly since you should know that atheists don't believe that deity exists. So your appeal to fear would be as meaningful to atheists as threatening atheists with punishment from Voldemort or the Tooth Fairy after they die.

Darth Executor
09-03-2015, 05:50 PM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.

JimL
09-03-2015, 08:44 PM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.

Fear isn't a good reason to believe anything.

Tassman
09-03-2015, 10:16 PM
A: "John's on the wagon."
B: "I saw John drinking a beer in the pub only an hour ago."
A: "Ah - that's just anecdotal evidence" ... which is to say it is worthless information indicative of nothing.
Failing all other avenues of escape, any piece of reported data can be hand waved away as nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence has its place, I didn't say otherwise. But "Data" is more than "just a collection of anecdotes", as DE would have it. Data" are facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis, whereas “anecdotes” are merely short accounts of an incident or event

Tassman
09-03-2015, 10:58 PM
So robots are sentient now?

Did I mention “robots”? :no:

I was responding to your erroneous assertion that …the soul is a "proxy for sentience. You said it's a "sense". But sentience” and “soul” are not interchangeable…unless you’re arguing that all sentient creatures have eternal souls, which I doubt is your argument. Immaterial souls, as generally understood, have nothing to do with animal or human sentience.


That's what the data says. :nsm: I mean, right before you whine you prove my point, namely that you have no innate sense of self which is why you think "all creatures" have it. Because you're a machine of flesh, not a sentient being.

No, that’s what DE says. :lol:


"facts and statistics" are anecdotes. Multiple anecdotes collected together form data.

Nonsense! Data are “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”, whereas “anecdotes are short accounts of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature”. Anecdotes alone are not sufficient.


Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.

...not if Christianity is untrue, which is probably the case. Regardless, fear is a poor motivator for anything.

Darth Executor
09-04-2015, 01:18 AM
Did I mention “robots”? :no:

You claimed sentience means you perceive things. Some robots perceive things.


I was responding to your erroneous assertion that …the soul is a "proxy for sentience. You said it's a "sense". But sentience” and “soul” are not interchangeable…unless you’re arguing that all sentient creatures have eternal souls, which I doubt is your argument. Immaterial souls, as generally understood, have nothing to do with animal or human sentience.

Sentience is the product of a soul. If you don't have a soul, you merely emulate sentience (IE: if I ask you whether you're sentient or not you say yes, but there's nobody who's actually home because it's clear you don't comprehend sentience).


Nonsense! Data are “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”, whereas “anecdotes are short accounts of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature”. Anecdotes alone are not sufficient.

How do you know data is collected? Oh yeah, because smeone gives an account of a particular incident (IE: an expermient).



...not if Christianity is untrue, which is probably the case. Regardless, fear is a poor motivator for anything.

Even if it is untrue. Truth has no inherent value in atheism, and since atheism is dysgenic it's better to believe a false religion that compels eugenic behavior than to don the fedora and neckbeard.

Tassman
09-04-2015, 03:31 AM
You claimed sentience means you perceive things. Some robots perceive things.

I was referring to sentient natural creatures; it’s a little premature to refer to robots as sentient.


Sentience is the product of a soul. If you don't have a soul, you merely emulate sentience (IE: if I ask you whether you're sentient or not you say yes, but there's nobody who's actually home because it's clear you don't comprehend sentience).

What is your evidence that souls even exist let alone that sentience is the product of a soul?


How do you know data is collected? Oh yeah, because smeone gives an account of a particular incident (IE: an expermient).

Data: “Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/data


Even if it is untrue. Truth has no inherent value in atheism, and since atheism is dysgenic it's better to believe a false religion that compels eugenic behavior than to don the fedora and neckbeard.

Factual, truth-based knowledge about how the world functions has survival value and as such is crucial to humans and the scientific enterprise…as opposed to religion-based “truth” which happily denies facts, such as ‘evolution’, if they’re perceived to contradict ancient holy books.

Sparko
09-04-2015, 06:14 AM
It's weird because you present it as simple, but it clearly isn't. The penitent faithful who meet the criteria that you laid out get tormented forever for their beliefs inculcated by enculturation.



Deep enculturation renders their religion sufficient to them. God should be able to comprehend the effects of being raised Mormon and not send that penitent and faithful person to hell. That's hideous.Or maybe God wants us to think for ourselves and not be "enculturated" - Besides if that were true then why are you an agnostic and others here are atheists, since our culture is basically Christian?

Again, God doesn't send someone to hell for being a Mormon, or a Muslim. If you don't have Jesus as your redeemer, then you are on your own. You will face God and be judged on your actions, not your religion. Is that not just?

whag
09-04-2015, 07:20 AM
Or maybe God wants us to think for ourselves and not be "enculturated" - Besides if that were true then why are you an agnostic and others here are atheists, since our culture is basically Christian?

Yes, tell the Mennonites and Amish not to be enculturated. Your views on culture are shockingly naive.

Some people can't think, clearly. But aside from that, I'm agnostic because I wasn't raised to believe in the Adam and Eve story, nor was I enculturated into Christian culture. Surely you've noticed how few really get in your face with Christianity here. I've met few evangelists, and those few had no idea even how their bible came together, much less could have a discussion about teleology and epistemology. And you wonder why there's a fall in numbers here? Bad organization. Worse pedagogy.


Again, God doesn't send someone to hell for being a Mormon, or a Muslim. If you don't have Jesus as your redeemer, then you are on your own. You will face God and be judged on your actions, not your religion. Is that not just?

Yes, the talking point is that he sends her to hell because she sinned. No, it wouldn't be just if she was inculcated and enculturated with a different belief system that muddies cognition, foments fear, and prevents conversion.

Tons of examples of muddied cognition even in your own religion. Look at mossy kicking against the goads on evolution, telling impressionable youth it comes from hell.

Sparko
09-04-2015, 07:49 AM
Yes, tell the Mennonites and Amish not to be enculturated. Your views on culture are shockingly naive.

Some people can't think, clearly. But aside from that, I'm agnostic because I wasn't raised to believe in the Adam and Eve story, nor was I enculturated into Christian culture. Surely you've noticed how few really get in your face with Christianity here. I've met few evangelists, and those few had no idea even how their bible came together, much less could have a discussion about teleology and epistemology. And you wonder why there's a fall in numbers here? Bad organization. Worse pedagogy.



Yes, the talking point is that he sends her to hell because she sinned. No, it wouldn't be just if she was inculcated and enculturated with a different belief system that muddies cognition, foments fear, and prevents conversion.

Tons of examples of muddied cognition even in your own religion. Look at mossy kicking against the goads on evolution, telling impressionable youth it comes from hell.

and yet Christianity started in an enculterated society of another religion (Judaism) and persecution and being hunted down and killed. :ahem:

And today one of the largest Christian populations is in another enculturated society, China.

firstfloor
09-04-2015, 10:14 AM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.Fear of death is undoubtedly motivation for becoming Christian in the sense that hunger and poverty might be motivation for stealing food, but reason, excellent or not, implies sound judgement. Such judgement is lacking in most people’s decision to become Christian because most do not make a decision at all. They are simply born into it. There is no intellect or reasoning involved.

It is leaving religion that requires sound judgement.

Jichard
09-04-2015, 04:52 PM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.

And now I know never to take what you say (as a Christian) seriously. After all, you're not interested in having true beliefs. Instead, you care about forming Christian beliefs that calm your fears, even though whether a belief calms your fears has no bearing on whether the belief is true. Enjoy your fallacious appeal to fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear).

Tassman
09-04-2015, 08:59 PM
Or maybe God wants us to think for ourselves and not be "enculturated" - Besides if that were true then why are you an agnostic and others here are atheists, since our culture is basically Christian?

Interesting that being raised in a Mormon society tends to result in people growing up Mormon, just as being raised an Islamic society or a Christian society, et al, tends to result in people who belong to these faiths. So which god is it that wants us to think for ourselves and not be "enculturated"?


Again, God doesn't send someone to hell for being a Mormon, or a Muslim. If you don't have Jesus as your redeemer, then you are on your own. You will face God and be judged on your actions, not your religion. Is that not just?

I thought you had to accept Jesus as your personal friend and saviour in order to atone for the sin of Adam and escape the eternal fires of hell. Am I wrong and how do you know?

tabibito
09-04-2015, 10:32 PM
Interesting that being raised in a Mormon society tends to result in people growing up Mormon, just as being raised an Islamic society or a Christian society, et al, tends to result in people who belong to these faiths. So which god is it that wants us to think for ourselves and not be "enculturated"?So very true - but Christianity makes successful, peaceful (ADMITTEDLY there are times when a contaminated form of Christianity has used the sword), and significant inroads in areas where your claim should make it impossible. Cultural predilection is not the impediment that your claims would have it be.




I thought you had to accept Jesus as your personal friend and saviour in order to atone for the sin of Adam and escape the eternal fires of hell. Am I wrong and how do you know?The claim is wrong - the requirement is that the person accept him as liege-lord, with all the mutual obligations that such acceptance implies.

Tassman
09-05-2015, 12:05 AM
So very true - but Christianity makes successful, peaceful (ADMITTEDLY there are times when a contaminated form of Christianity has used the sword), and significant inroads in areas where your claim should make it impossible. Cultural predilection is not the impediment that your claims would have it be.


Most times throughout its history actually. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane. This is true of all religions and Christianity is no exception.

http://www.skeptically.org/hhor/id4.html

It’s surely no accident that the most equitable, peaceful and just societies in the world today tend to be the most secular ones.


The claim is wrong - the requirement is that the person accept him as liege-lord, with all the mutual obligations that such acceptance implies.

How very feudal.:ahem:

tabibito
09-05-2015, 12:55 AM
Most times throughout its history actually. The record of human experience shows that where religion ideology is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility FIFY. I've noticed that tendency among atheists.


Only when faith privelege loses its force can a society hope to become humane. This is true of all religions societies and Christianity is no exception. FIFY


http://www.skeptically.org/hhor/id4.html A few points lower on the dispassionate index than most religious sites.


It’s surely no accident that the most equitable, peaceful and just societies in the world today tend to be the most secular ones. Name one... China perhaps? Russia?


How very feudal.:ahem: Goodness - you got something right about Christianity.

Tassman
09-05-2015, 02:35 AM
FIFY. I've noticed that tendency among atheists.

FIFY

A few points lower on the dispassionate index than most religious sites.

Actually I was thinking more of the murderous Christian treatment of ancient Pagans especially at the time of Christian Emperor Theodosius, the Crusades and in particular the 4th Crusade when Christian Constantinople was sacked by Western Christians, the hunting down of Heretics such as the slaughter of the Albigensians, the witch hunts e.g. at Salem, religious wars e.g. the 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant), and the colonization of the world by the Christian powers, e.g. the genocidal Conquistadors…to name a few of the atrocities of Christianity throughout history.


Name one... China perhaps? Russia?

Most of Scandinavia, much of Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. The most violent and inequitable nation of the Western world is the only one where Christianity still has real influence, i.e. the USA.


Goodness - you got something right about Christianity.

Yeah! But while Christianity remains feudal (according to you), the rest of the developed world has progressed and developed into tolerant representative democracies.

tabibito
09-05-2015, 02:59 AM
Actually I was thinking more of the murderous Christian treatment of ancient Pagans especially at the time of Christian Emperor Theodosius, the Crusades and in particular the 4th Crusade when Christian Constantinople was sacked by Western Christians, the hunting down of Heretics such as the slaughter of the Albigensians, the witch hunts e.g. at Salem, religious wars e.g. the 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant), and the colonization of the world by the Christian powers, e.g. the genocidal Conquistadors…to name a few of the atrocities of Christianity throughout history. The churches abandoned the principles of Christianity to pursue that course. Calling them Christian would be equivalent to a military dictator seizing control of a democratic country and have you still calling the country a democracy.


Most of Scandinavia, much of Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. The most violent and inequitable nation of the Western world is the only one where Christianity still has real influence, i.e. the USA. Interesting perspective.




Yeah! But while Christianity remains feudal (according to you), the rest of the developed world has progressed and developed into tolerant representative democracies. Look around - there's not a whole lot of "tolerant representative" in evidence - no more here than in the USA.

Well, perhaps a bit more here: but it is being steadily eroded.

Tassman
09-05-2015, 03:29 AM
The churches abandoned the principles of Christianity to pursue that course. Calling them Christian would be equivalent to a military dictator seizing control of a democratic country and have you still calling the country a democracy.

Ah, so they were not “true Christians”…this is merely the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/


Interesting perspective.

More than just “interesting”, it’s a factually based perspective. Check out the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index…the USA only ranks 28th whereas the Scandinavian countries are near the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI


Look around - there's not a whole lot of "tolerant representative" in evidence - no more here than in the USA.

Well, perhaps a bit more here: but it is being steadily eroded.

Where is “here”?

Regardless, apart from your religion, feudalism was mostly irrelevant by the 12th century.

tabibito
09-05-2015, 04:03 AM
Ah, so they were not “true Christians”…this is merely the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If you choose to see it as represented by the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, there is little that I can do about it. The "factually based perspective" is quite readily distinguishable in Church history - the single most significant event in post 65 (or thenabouts) AD Church history.


More than just “interesting”, it’s a factually based perspective. Check out the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index…the USA only ranks 28th whereas the Scandinavian countries are near the top. I note that Ireland comes in 10th, Israel 20th - both heavily influenced by religion, and even Malta and Italy rank ahead not only of the USA, but ahead of a whole swathe of non religious countries. If anything, the IHDI index is independent of religious affiliation.


Where is “here”? Australia.


Regardless, apart from your religion, feudalism was mostly irrelevant by the 12th century.in Europe. And to this day, feudalism (within circumscribed areas) is far from irrelevant to Christianity - regardless of what the churches choose to make themselves.

whag
09-05-2015, 03:18 PM
and yet Christianity started in an enculterated society of another religion (Judaism) and persecution and being hunted down and killed. :ahem:

And today one of the largest Christian populations is in another enculturated society, China.

What's this supposed to say other than some Christian conversions happen in places that are predominately another religion or religions? Is it supposed to take the sting out of your religion saying that non-Christians get eternally tortured for being other religions?

Also, you have to consider the type of evangelism that's causing Christianity elsewhere. You don't care if a Hinn or Bonnke spreads the fire, as long as there's ignition.

Tassman
09-05-2015, 10:05 PM
If you choose to see it as represented by the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, there is little that I can do about it. The "factually based perspective" is quite readily distinguishable in Church history - the single most significant event in post 65 (or thenabouts) AD Church history.

Viewing it as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is the only realistic way to view it given the bloody history of Christianity.


I note that Ireland comes in 10th, Israel 20th - both heavily influenced by religion, and even Malta and Italy rank ahead not only of the USA, but ahead of a whole swathe of non religious countries. If anything, the IHDI index is independent of religious affiliation.

As a general rule the nations that are highest on the Human Development Index tend to correlate with the most secular countries… there will always be exceptions, e.g. Vietnam for instance.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html


Australia.

Ah, God’s own country…except that it’s not. As you must be aware religion plays virtually no role in the national discourse of the great land down-under.


in Europe. And to this day, feudalism (within circumscribed areas) is far from irrelevant to Christianity - regardless of what the churches choose to make themselves.

My point was that feudalism died out in the 12th century in terms of national governance…if not religion.

tabibito
09-05-2015, 10:18 PM
What's this supposed to say other than some Christian conversions happen in places that are predominately another religion or religions? Is it supposed to take the sting out of your religion saying that non-Christians get eternally tortured for being other religions? The argument that "the religion people take up is culturally determined" was addressed - your question is not related to the context of that issue.

The torture story is interesting though - it is never stated in the Bible that anyone is actually inflicting torture - only that there will be anguish and suffering. I therefore regard the criticisms as overblown, specious, and self serving.


Also, you have to consider the type of evangelism that's causing Christianity elsewhere. You don't care if a Hinn or Bonnke spreads the fire, as long as there's ignition.The rules that determine a valid identification as Christian are not made up by me - those rules are stated in the Bible. ("Scotsman fallacy" doesn't apply - the definitions are neither subjective nor ad hoc). It should therefore self evident that "prosperity gospel" preachers are not promoting Christianity. However, reports from China indicate a possibility that someone over there is.

37818
09-06-2015, 01:35 PM
Evidence of history. There's a reason atavisms in primates would never be expressed in a bird beak. We don't share a common ancestor with birds.

:lol: We share that same DNA. Explain that.

Tassman
09-06-2015, 10:29 PM
:lol: We share that same DNA. Explain that.

Well we all started out with the same DNA way back when.

shunyadragon
09-09-2015, 11:23 AM
The churches abandoned the principles of Christianity to pursue that course. Calling them Christian would be equivalent to a military dictator seizing control of a democratic country and have you still calling the country a democracy.

This terribly problematic, and has been noted, the fallacy of the "true Scotsman." To give equal weight and prospective I could easily put forth the problem of who are the true atheists. IF I consider the true atheists as those that believe and support the Humanist Manifestos and the UU ideals, and those that followed Hitler, and Mao Tse Tong as not true atheists.

Sparko
09-09-2015, 11:36 AM
This terribly problematic, and has been noted, the fallacy of the "true Scotsman." To give equal weight and prospective I could easily put forth the problem of who are the true atheists. IF I consider the true atheists as those that believe and support the Humanist Manifestos and the UU ideals, and those that followed Hitler, and Mao Tse Tong as not true atheists.I am an atheist who believes in God. :duh:

firstfloor
09-09-2015, 11:58 AM
I am an atheist ... I’m going to have that framed.

Jichard
09-12-2015, 06:16 PM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.


Pointing to an emotion and saying ""see we win" is not an argument. An argument is not made on emotional foundations as pointed by the appeal to emotion fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal

:blush:

tabibito
09-12-2015, 10:56 PM
Fear of death is an excellent reason to be a Christian.While I don't exactly agree - though it is true that fear of death is an excellent motivator to carefully consider Christianity - fear of drowning remains an excellent reason to reach for a life-raft.


Pointing to an emotion and saying ""see we win" is not an argument. An argument is not made on emotional foundations as pointed by the appeal to emotion fallacy.
This one would seem to be a non-sequitur in the context of the preceding discussion. Just as citing comments made in two different topics by two different people and pointing to an apparent contradiction is a non-sequitur.


I find your lack of faith disturbing, Commander