only an Earth and then a hell...
Posted on: Sat, 2007-02-03 04:07
Offline
only an Earth and then a hell...
Just a quick question to the few theists roaming the boards....
Do you only worship god for passage to heaven? if yes, consider these questions. if no, then point proven.
If there was only an Earth and then a Hell. No heaven, would you still worship a powerful god? would you worship a non-powerful god in those circumstances? State reasoning if you say yes to any of those. feedback would be lovely
hummm not being thiest but not entirely athiest and being with whom im hanging with (very pro christian opinionated chez) i believe that she states she would keep her faith for god till the end no matter the circumstances. this is because she is loyal to her god and no matter what is said his word is truth and light... and she finds no reason to believe against him even if it ment hell after death any ways....
Hey Greg, it's been a while, great to have you back.
But I always wondered the same thing. They probably won't admit it, but the theists are probably just worshiping their god for the passage to heaven. Actually, that's the whole point of worshiping a god, to earn some kind of reward in the afterlife or something.
Another good question would be "what's the point of an afterlife?"
If heaven and hell are places you will be in for an eternity, what's the point of living?
I would. I dont follow God for passage into Heaven. I follow God because hes...well God. Heaven is just a plus.
What about the other gods?
hmm, thank you for the warm welcome. To the fellow who would follow just because he is God... Hmm now tell me, do you say that because you are scared if you answer the question with a no god will be mad at you? if you did think that then you would go to hell anyways. God can read thoughts :) What would you gain from believing in God? There would be no pros, only cons, and I say hell would be one hell of a large con if you ask me.
They all most likely do. They dont admit it or that they dont really think about it. Wouldnt if a thesist worshiped a god for heaven, wouldnt they go to hell for it?
[quote=KCahill]They all most likely do. They dont admit it or that they dont really think about it. Wouldnt if a thesist worshiped a god for heaven, wouldnt they go to hell for it?[/quote]
They don't believe that.
[quote]Hmm now tell me, do you say that because you are scared if you answer the question with a no god will be mad at you? if you did think that then you would go to hell anyways[/quote]
No, For one thing I dont believe following God just to get to Heaven is a ticket to hell. But I do think there are better reasons for doing so.
[quote]What would you gain from believing in God?[/quote]
Who said we have to gain something in order to do whats right?
Even if there was no Heaven, it's still true that God is one who created us, who sustains us, and who gives us the opportunity to enjoy this life. I'd say that alone makes him worthy of our respect if nothing else.
[quote]There would be no pros, only cons, and I say hell would be one hell of a large con if you ask me.[/quote]
Yes and in your scenario everyone would be going there. So what difference does it make?
Hi Greg.
[quote]Do you only worship god for passage to heaven?[/quote]
No. I worship God because he deserves it.
[quote]If there was only an Earth and then a Hell. No heaven, would you still worship a powerful god?[/quote]
Yes. He would still deserve worship even without the extras of Heaven.
[quote]would you worship a non-powerful god in those circumstances?[/quote]
I honestly don't understand what you're asking here. Are you asking if I would convert to another religion because it had a Heaven and mine didn't? No, I wouldn't. I would believe whatever has the most evidence.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot] I follow God because hes...well God. [/quote]
Okay, dare I suggest thinking for yourself? I mean, you can do what you think somebody says, or you could think for yourself and do the best thing possible for yourself and people you care about (and last time I checked, that includes the vast majority of humans, at least for me.). There are only pitfalls when you follow the leader instead of thinking and acting from intelligence. The best you can do is break even with thinking for yourself, except it is contingent on the whims of a nondefinite being. Thinking for yourself is always good, and justifying thoughtless obedience is absurd.
This issue goes back to the simple question I posed months ago to a group of highly gifted kids: Can a perfect dictator ever be morally justified?
I think you will find this is not possible. Free will is what gives actions meaning. Choosing not to exercise it is just as bad, if not worse, than not having it.
[quote]There are only pitfalls when you follow the leader instead of thinking and acting from intelligence.[/quote]
Unless, of course, they've proven themselves worthy of our following.
[quote]This issue goes back to the simple question I posed months ago to a group of highly gifted kids: Can a perfect dictator ever be morally justified? [/quote]
A poor comparison. God can't really be considered a 'dictator.' At lest not in the sense that he forces us to follow him.
And quite frankly I'm certain if a dictorship is completely unjustifiable. Sometimes the stability, safty and effiecency of a dictatorship is preferable to no government, or a completely inept one. In fact thats why most dictatorships are formed.
[quote]I think you will find this is not possible. Free will is what gives actions meaning. [/quote]
Right, and that's precisely why God allows us to have it. And allows us to freely exercise it, by, for example, creating websites dedicated to his non-existance.
[quote]Choosing not to exercise it is just as bad, if not worse, than not having it.[/quote]
Yea, and I have freely chosen to follow God. The problem is?
A dictator cannot force you to follow, he just punishes you for not. How's that different from 'God'?
The only problem I have with this topic is the only real point of living is to eventually have unity with God in Heaven. Without Heaven, there would be no unity, so there would be no Christianity in the first place.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]
Unless, of course, they've proven themselves worthy of our following.
[/quote]
Even then, you are sacrificing your ability to make the choice because you think someone else can make it better. That is intellectual sloth.
[quote][quote]This issue goes back to the simple question I posed months ago to a group of highly gifted kids: Can a perfect dictator ever be morally justified? [/quote]
A poor comparison. God can't really be considered a 'dictator.' At lest not in the sense that he forces us to follow him.
And quite frankly I'm certain if a dictorship is completely unjustifiable. Sometimes the stability, safty and effiecency of a dictatorship is preferable to no government, or a completely inept one. In fact thats why most dictatorships are formed. [/quote]
Of course, this is a dictator of men. We have government, and we are able to make covenants among men in order to further ourselves. This dictatorship is in no ways better, as it implies men cannot achieve any system better than a dictatorship run by a book.
[quote][quote]I think you will find this is not possible. Free will is what gives actions meaning. [/quote]
Right, and that's precisely why God allows us to have it. And allows us to freely exercise it, by, for example, creating websites dedicated to his non-existance. [/quote]
But then you sacrifice your capacity for thought, your capacity to make your life better and focus on what is truly important. For a book from thousands of years ago.
[quote][quote]Choosing not to exercise it is just as bad, if not worse, than not having it.[/quote]
Yea, and I have freely chosen to follow God. The problem is? [/quote]
You have used your thought capabilities to abandon them. Nearly sad. But I do hand out pity on street corners. I expect anyone who values the good humans can do to realize we need the best thing we have, our brilliance, to get to the best possible outcome.
That is all.
[quote]Even then, you are sacrificing your ability to make the choice because you think someone else can make it better[/quote]
But what if they can? This is the issue you havent touched yet.
[quote]But then you sacrifice your capacity for thought[/quote]
Who said anything about sacraficing our capicty for thought? I'm still constantly learning. And even re-thinking my faith. I know a lot more now than I did when I first became a Christian, and not just in matters of faith either.
[quote]your capacity to make your life better and focus on what is truly important[/quote]
Really? Explain what you mean, because it certainly doesnt look like from where I'm standing.
[quote]For a book from thousands of years ago. [/quote]
No, not a book, for God. Although, yes I do happen to believe that God has chosen to reveal himself through a series of books, nowadays known collectively as the Bible.
[quote]You have used your thought capabilities to abandon them[/quote]
No, I used my thought capabilities to determine what is true. I still do that actually.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote]Even then, you are sacrificing your ability to make the choice because you think someone else can make it better[/quote]
But what if they can? This is the issue you havent touched yet. [/quote]
That is irrelevant. Taking a position where you assume complete ignorance and look to a fiction novel for advice is degrading the value of human life and human thought, as well as having no benefit. This book was written by humans, and insisting that humans with little knowledge of the world somehow exceed present day's capacity for knowledge is absurd.
[quote][quote]But then you sacrifice your capacity for thought[/quote]
Who said anything about sacraficing our capicty for thought? I'm still constantly learning. And even re-thinking my faith. I know a lot more now than I did when I first became a Christian, and not just in matters of faith either. [/quote]
Not sure if you are keeping track, but I said 'anything about sacrificing our capacity for thought'. Yep, I am pretty sure that was me. See, I in no way mean to imply you sacrifice [i]all[/i] your critical thinking prowess. I only mean that to say you are kowtowing to a books sense of right and wrong. Frankly, thinking and making you choices is more thoughtful. Wait... ya, that is the definition of thoughtful.
[quote][quote]your capacity to make your life better and focus on what is truly important[/quote]
Really? Explain what you mean, because it certainly doesnt look like from where I'm standing. [/quote]
Well, there are many things that are important. I was going to list a few examples, but I couldn't think of a way to narrow the list. But I assure you, your invisible friends do not qualify as important. Family, Friends, and chocolate yogurt, for example, are fairly important.
[quote][quote]For a book from thousands of years ago. [/quote]
No, not a book, for God. Although, yes I do happen to believe that God has chosen to reveal himself through a series of books, nowadays known collectively as the Bible. [/quote]
Oh, right... cause God visits you and gives you advice concerning diversity... oh, wait... that was [url=http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/12.html]Deuteronomy![/url]
That was about as in context as the bible gets. This [i]is[/i] the context. I made sure about this one. Hence the whole chapter.
[quote][quote]You have used your thought capabilities to abandon them[/quote]
No, I used my thought capabilities to determine what is true. I still do that actually. [/quote]
Awesome. Because I was hoping I wouldn't have to preach to atheist choir (oh, religious metaphors in this context... lol). But it seems we agree, unless there is a misunderstanding. Which there probably is. Your comment seems out of place... did you forget a 'not' or a 'no' somewhere?
Best of luck in all of your ventures,
Josh
[quote=JoshHickman]. Family, Friends, and chocolate yogurt, for example, are fairly important.[/quote]
And I consider these things important as well as God. Is it really that hard to do?
[quote]Awesome. Because I was hoping I wouldn't have to preach to atheist choir (oh, religious metaphors in this context... lol). But it seems we agree, unless there is a misunderstanding. Which there probably is. Your comment seems out of place... did you forget a 'not' or a 'no' somewhere?[/quote]
No, I didnt forget any no's. Not sure how my comment seems out of place though.
[quote=shay]hummm not being thiest but not entirely athiest [/quote]
How is that possible?
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1][quote=shay]hummm not being thiest but not entirely athiest [/quote]
How is that possible?
[/quote]
Yeah, I don't get it, either. That's like saying you're a little bit gay, straight, bi, asexual, and a little bit promiscuous.
Or Shay meant that she's an agnostic.
She needs to check [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist]this[/url] out.
She needs to start playing semantic games?
Do you disagree?
Yes. See, some people(mostly theists) have this mental deficiency that seems to make them not understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Since the basis of faith is that belief---> knowledge, they are inable to comprend of the tow being separate. But for thinking people, we must come to believe that there is a VAST difference between belief and knowledge. I believe there is no God(I'm a positive atheist, I don't just lack belief in a god, I deny all the existence of 'God's' proposed so far). I don't know. Some people(again namely faith-heads) can't comprend of believing something without claiming to 'know'. It's really quite sad that people think they can shape reality with their beliefs.
[quote]Do you disagree?[/quote]
Its not so much a matter of disagreeing as not seeing what differnce it makes.
See above
[quote]Yes. See, some people(mostly theists) have this mental deficiency that seems to make them not understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Since the basis of faith is that belief---> knowledge, they are inable to comprend of the tow being separate. But for thinking people, we must come to believe that there is a VAST difference between belief and knowledge. I believe there is no God(I'm a positive atheist, I don't just lack belief in a god, I deny all the existence of 'God's' proposed so far). I don't know. Some people(again namely faith-heads) can't comprend of believing something without claiming to 'know'. It's really quite sad that people think they can shape reality with their beliefs.[/quote]
Agnostics are generally avoiding the question. Theism and atheism deal with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. We are all agnostic (it is impossible to know for sure anything (I mean 100% because it is possible that we are a brain in a vat (type argument))) to an extent. So it is really a choice between atheism and theism.
BTW, This is a discussion I had with one of my two "Agnostic" friends. (no that I think of it, I don't think that I know of one other atheist teen in person... just realized that)
Wel yes, Agnostic Atheists who claim 'agnosticism' are generally avoiding the question and the stigma of atheism. Christian just have trouble understanding that there are different realms because faith makes knowledge and belief basically the same thing.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, while atheism deals with beliefs, or lack thereof. So it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. And like Guruite said, everyone is ultimately an agnostic because it is impossible to know for a fact if god exists or not, although many would disagree.
obviously if you believe in profits or god then they are not agnostic.
My approach, for instance is that we can never know. In other words, the Gnostics are nuts. But I also think that organized religion is crap, whether or not God exists, because no one could know, and people are settling for whatever they are told. And, yes, it is whatever they are told. If people can believe in Scientology, they will believe anything. Mormonism is almost as bad. FSM seems a little more reasonable that Scientology. But I could be wrong.
[quote]Gnostics are nuts. [/quote]
Haha, Yeah...
[quote]FSM seems a little more reasonable that Scientology. But I could be wrong.[/quote]
I don't think so, FSM has pirate statistics
[quote]I don't think so, FSM has pirate statistics[/quote]
And what beats pirates!?! Nothing!
So nobody disagrees with me that this is a semantic game?
Yes, of course it is, we're arguing over the meaning of the word. I happen to think I'm right, but regardless, we're arguing over the meaning of a word. But what's more important than a clear, defined language, when speaking of debate
I think at one point we had a topic. here we go with more rambling.
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot]
And I consider these things important as well as God. Is it really that hard to do? [/quote]
I think it is important that we agree on whether Chocolate Yogurt is important. See, I like chocolate yogurt because I can have it when I am hungry. It is very good. Most importantly, it exists. See, I can point to this yogurt and say, Hey, this is the yogurt right here. It is there for my eating pleasure whenever I need it. See, my only thing with finding God important (aside from any belief statements, which kinda bug me innately) is that he is a complete jerk. It is like being stood up at a party. The best anyone gets is feeling like God is there, and I can feel chocolate yogurt is right beside me even when it isn't. If my best friend was God, I would ask God to stop being a jerk and just say hi to me. Show up and say something like, "What's up?", because at some point after you get stood up, you walk away.
[quote][quote]Awesome. Because I was hoping I wouldn't have to preach to atheist choir (oh, religious metaphors in this context... lol). But it seems we agree, unless there is a misunderstanding. Which there probably is. Your comment seems out of place... did you forget a 'not' or a 'no' somewhere?[/quote]
No, I didnt forget any no's. Not sure how my comment seems out of place though. [/quote]
I misinterpreted thought to mean you realized that you are proposing an extraordinarily elaborate scheme involving a book written by people who could virtually never fact check and were more retarded than people today. This scheme includes talking snakes, super- powers, Multiple Personality disorder in a omnipotent being, as well as your beloved Main character killing babies because a single person was being an prick
[quote]I misinterpreted thought to mean you realized that you are proposing an extraordinarily elaborate scheme involving a book written by people who could virtually never fact check and were more retarded than people today. This scheme includes talking snakes, super- powers, Multiple Personality disorder in a omnipotent being, as well as your beloved Main character killing babies because a single person was being an prick[/quote]
I don't know if this rule will stand the test of time, but from now on - all heroic main characters must refrain from innocent baby killing
[quote]I think it is important that we agree on whether Chocolate Yogurt is important. See, I like chocolate yogurt because I can have it when I am hungry. It is very good. Most importantly, it exists. See, I can point to this yogurt and say, Hey, this is the yogurt right here. It is there for my eating pleasure whenever I need it. See, my only thing with finding God important (aside from any belief statements, which kinda bug me innately) is that he is a complete jerk. It is like being stood up at a party. The best anyone gets is feeling like God is there, and I can feel chocolate yogurt is right beside me even when it isn't. If my best friend was God, I would ask God to stop being a jerk and just say hi to me. Show up and say something like, "What's up?", because at some point after you get stood up, you walk away.[/quote]
I guess, but the problem is that you never talked to god into going to the dance/party with you.
You just asked his front door's man who hasn't ever seen heard or touched god himself and is reading a book about a guy who claims that he saw/smelt/tasted god. So in reality, it is silly to expect god to show up when the person you asked to make him show up hasn't seen God himself.
Oh, and what is chocolate yogurt? I mean I have never tried it... ive tried pudding... what is diffrent about yogurt.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Yes, of course it is, we're arguing over the meaning of the word. I happen to think I'm right, but regardless, we're arguing over the meaning of a word. But what's more important than a clear, defined language, when speaking of debate[/quote]
Well in that case I'v always thought of an agnostic as someone who doesnt hold a position(positive or negetive) on the existence of god(s). Believeing that theres not sufficent evidence to determine one way or the other.
For example, I would consider myself an agnostic on the existence of aliens. I dont hold a position either way, as I dont see sufficent evidence to determine whether aliens exist or not. There probably will be such evidence one day. But for now I remain agnostic.
No, agnostic regards knowledge as unknowable or that you just do not know. A weak atheist holds no positive or negative belief on the existence of god, they do not believe, but they do not disbelieve.
[quote=KCahill]And what beats pirates!?! Nothing![/quote]
Ninjas beat pirates.
HELLS YES NINJAS. But pirates are good too.
[quote=P-Dunn][quote=KCahill]And what beats pirates!?! Nothing![/quote]
Ninjas beat pirates.[/quote]
Solid Snake beats all though.
Pssh! Colbert beats snake
[quote=Guruite]No, agnostic regards knowledge as unknowable or that you just do not know. A weak atheist holds no positive or negative belief on the existence of god, they do not believe, but they do not disbelieve.[/quote]
not necessarily, agnostic regards to a lack of knowledge. Whether or not that knowledge can be obtained is another story. For instance, I am agnostic about Aliens...
[quote], agnostic regards to a lack of knowledge.[/quote]
Yes Either we do not currently know, Or it is impossible to know.
[quote]Whether or not that knowledge can be obtained is another story.[/quote]
Agnostic has two forms, like atheism (actually atheism has several... but that is beside the point) there is Strong Agnosticism and Weak Agnosticism
Weak agnosticism is a lack of knowledge
Strong agnosticism is a positive belief that some (or all) knowledge is inherently unknowable.
[quote]For instance, I am agnostic about Aliens...[/quote]
More exactly, you are weak agnostic. A strong agnostic would say that aleins could never be proven or disproven even hypothetically
^ I could be way off on all of this, this is mostly what I have read... Gnostics and Agnostics deal with knowledge and belief of knowledge....
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Yes, of course it is, we're arguing over the meaning of the word. I happen to think I'm right, but regardless, we're arguing over the meaning of a word. But what's more important than a clear, defined language, when speaking of debate[/quote]
Well in that case I'v always thought of an agnostic as someone who doesnt hold a position(positive or negetive) on the existence of god(s). Believeing that theres not sufficent evidence to determine one way or the other.
For example, I would consider myself an agnostic on the existence of aliens. I dont hold a position either way, as I dont see sufficent evidence to determine whether aliens exist or not. There probably will be such evidence one day. But for now I remain agnostic. [/quote]
you're also an a-alienist, because you lack a belief in aliens.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]you're also an a-alienist, because you lack a belief in aliens.[/quote]
I see a couple of problems with this:
First to say I 'lack belief' in aleins implies that I take a negetive view of their existence. I dont hold a position on the issue at all.
Secondly to define athieism this way makes the term almost meaningless(since it would apply to ANYBODY who isnt a deist or theist), and leaves no word to describe those who do deny the existence of god(s). For that reason I think it's better, for the sake of clairity, to define athieism in terms of believeing god does not exist.
Anywho as I said before I find this be little more than a semantic game. But that's my $.02
[quote]I 'lack belief' in aleins implies that I take a negetive view of their existence. I dont hold a position on the issue at all.[/quote]
Not holding a position on the issue and lacking a belief are the same thing. (I believe...)
[quote]
Secondly to define athieism this way makes the term almost meaningless(since it would apply to ANYBODY who isnt a deist or theist), and leaves no word to describe those who do deny the existence of god(s). For that reason I think it's better, for the sake of clairity, to define athieism in terms of believeing god does not exist.[/quote]
This is the diffrence between strong and weak atheism
[quote=Guruite]Not holding a position on the issue and lacking a belief are the same thing. (I believe...)[/quote]
NOt necessarly I dont have time to explain right now. But I might when I get time.
[quote]This is the diffrence between strong and weak atheism[/quote]
But again, doesnt that make 'weak' athiesm and agnosticism the same thing? Why bother dividing athiesim into two camps when we have another term that will describe one of them?
[quote]But again, doesnt that make 'weak' athiesm and agnosticism the same thing? Why bother dividing athiesim into two camps when we have another term that will describe one of them?[/quote]
Nope. That is a misconception that I used to have.
But I learned from these forums when I first came here that agnosticism is separate from atheism and theism.
If you are atheist (or a weak atheist as some may say), you don't believe in a god, rather, you choose not to worship one. If you're a strong atheist, you believe there is no god or supreme being whatsoever.
Agnosticism is more about [i]knowledge[/i] than belief. If you are an agnostic atheist, you don't worship a god, but you don't [i]know[/i] whether there is something superior out there or not, essentially because it can't be proven either way.
If you're an agnostic theist, then you choose to worship a god, but you just don't [i]know[/i] for sure. (Then you might as well be atheist cause you're not gonna get into heaven with doubts like that! ;))
[quote=Toxicat]
(Then you might as well be atheist cause you're not gonna get into heaven with doubts like that! ;))[/quote]
Lol, yeah. :)
[quote](Then you might as well be atheist cause you're not gonna get into heaven with doubts like that! Eye-wink)[/quote]
Before I went atheist, my mom asked me to bear my testimony (testimonkey) of the chruch. I told her that I did not know that it was true
(it seems to be a requirement at the end - I'd like to bear my testimony, I know this church is true, I love my mom and dad, and joseph smith was a profit)
Anywho, she told me that the knowledge of a testimony was to be found in the bearing it (so saying that I believe it will eventually make me believe it)
This is a little off topic, but the point is that most mormons, if you were to rationally confront them on knowledge would proably lie and say that they did KNOW that the church was true... I see that as some manipulation (starts before were 8 ) - So, I think that most chrsitians (I am extending my knowledge of mormon doctrine here) who say that they KNOW that their church is true are only saying that and in their minds they really don't. But I am sure that lots have actually deluded
(I think deluded sounds like a pompous word... just my opinion... like your So DELUEDED - say it with a pompous air... never mind)
themselves into thinking that they actually know...