Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 03-18-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scifinerdgrl

I still remember my horror at discovering that the end of the Sodom and Gomorrah story includes drunkenness, rape, and incest in the supposedly "good" family that was spared.

Interesting. That's one of those stories that never bugged me because I saw it as something that was supposed to be a bad example. Lot and his family were taken out of Sodom, but Sodom never quite got out of Lot and his family. Of course, when I first read the Bible, I was becoming a Christian, and my previous beliefs could be described as a loose sort of deism in which God was a bit contrary, Loki-esque, and though mostly hands-off, was responsible for the occasional contrariness of the universe. That colored and probably lowered my expectations to some extent.

Iskander · 03-18-2006, 12:08 PM

I think that if you use the Torah or the Greek Testsment or the Koran or Vedas or Dhammapda orAdi Granth or any other religious book you may appear to others as nothing more than cultural parasites.

Judging by the atheistic input to this forum atheists seem to be obsessed with religion and the compulsion to clarify any of its obscure points.

May I suggest the Little Red Book by the late Chairman Mao Tse-Tung as an suitable book from the atheistic stable?

As a classical alternative the Frogs by Aristophanes in which the god Dionysus rows across the Styx to the accompaniment of a chorus croaking-brekekekex koax koax.

The chorus is an early example of the cultural achievements of atheism and it could be played at a suitable time on your forum.

brekekekex koax koax.!! A devastating multicultural, message to free all mankind from every religious evil.

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

brekekekex koax koax.!! A devastating multicultural, message to free all mankind from every religious evil.

LOL...funny, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you maybe eliminate the sarcasm and try again, you know, dumb it down?

RUmike · 03-18-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Thanks. It was a touching read. However, I would have to say that Ingersoll, in his letter, sounded more agnostic than atheist to me. It sounded to me as if he were saying we can't know what is after death, none of us.

Here is what I do not understand. I can see possible comfort in agnosticism. However, unless one believes in some sort of supernatural something, or reincarnation, or whatever, then at death you are gone. I don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permenantly and forever gone into black void never to remember the life they led and any deeds they had done...utterly meaningless.

Hey Pyros. Yes, I think it is an incredibly touching read, also. And you're right; Ingersoll was not an atheist, but an agnostic.

As to your next point, I understand where you're coming from. But to respond, again I'll post some words of Ingersoll (from the same exact link actually), that probably almost everyone on this board would agree with:

Quote:

"I had rather think of those I have loved, and lost, as having returned to earth, as having become a part of the elemental wealth of the world -- I would rather think of them as unconscious dust, I would rather dream of them as gurgling in the streams, floating in the clouds, bursting in the foam of light upon the shores of worlds, I would rather think of them as the lost visions of a forgotten night, than to have even the faintest fear that their naked souls have been clutched by an orthodox god. I will leave my dead where nature leaves them. Whatever flower of hope springs up in my heart I will cherish, I will give it breath of sighs and rain of tears. But I can not believe that there is any being in this universe who has created a human soul for eternal pain. I would rather that every god would destroy himself; I would rather that we all should go to eternal chaos, to black and starless night, than that just one soul should suffer eternal agony.

You see, it's not just heaven that religion often offers (and Christianity in particular), but also a hell. And to rid the world of the second belief is, in my opinion, worth ridding of the former as well. Here is another small passage from Ingersoll on the topic:

Quote:

The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny, I wait. The immortality of the soul I neither affirm nor deny. I hope -- hope for all of the children of men. I have never denied the existence of another world, nor the immortality of the soul. For many years I have said that the idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture.

You wrote in your post, "I don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permenantly and forever gone into black void". But I also don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permanantly and forever suffering eternal pain and torment. This is why we put sick animals to sleep. Would you rather know they have slipped away into eternal sleep, or are suffering unspeakable pain?

I understand your point, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from as well.

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

You see, it's not just heaven that religion often offers (and Christianity in particular), but also a hell. And to rid the world of the second belief is, in my opinion, worth ridding of the former as well. Here is another small passage from Ingersoll on the topic:

Interesting thought about hell, but I wouldn't want to rid Christians of the "Hope" of heaven because of the spectre of a Hell that is meant for punishment of wrongdoings. Many Christians believe "Hell" to be eternal separation from God, just as many believe it is a fiery abyss.

As for myself, I consider the idea of eternal, black, meaningless, uknowning, unloving void to be my "Hell". I want to live on in some form or fashion and retain memories of loved ones. I want my life and memories to be preserved and not fade away to be forgotten forever. They mean something to me here and now, and I want them to always mean something to me. That is not possible for an atheist, and it is "iffy" for an agnostic. What to do...

Quote:

I understand where you come from in your view, but I hope you can also understand where we (Ingersoll, myself, and others with the same view) come from as well.

I can appreciate your views, and I wish you peace in your views. I think even the most sincere and devout theists have silent, momentary doubts.

One thing I can't help noticing in Ingersoll's writings is the very strong use of emotion-evoking and beautifully descriptive prose. I think he is very honest, but I think that he makes some irrational, emotional leaps in his writings. This, to me, is more evidence of what I referred to as rationalization of one's views (or "finding a replacement crutch, so to speak").

Roger Pearse · 03-18-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

You see, it's not just heaven that religion often offers (and Christianity in particular), but also a hell. And to rid the world of the second belief is, in my opinion, worth ridding of the former as well.

Are we sure that it is an advance that the great and the good of our day should be certain that, whatever they do, they will face no accounting other than that of their peers, no judgement of their deeds, no punishment for any evil that they choose to do?

"Those born above the fear of poverty, punishment and criticism are seldom restrained in their moral behaviour." (Arthur Bryant, "Samuel Pepys: the years of peril", 1952, p.15)

"No matter. This can still be said:
Never in supernatural dread,
Never to unseen deity,
Did Sir John Grubby bow the knee.
Never did fear of hell or wrath
Turn Viscount Grubby from his path.
Nor was he bribed, by fabled bliss,
To kneel to any world but this."
(G.K.Chesterton, The New Freethinker)

I used to work until recently as a contractor for an insurance company, run by a man who had made a fortune founding insurance companies and had come back out of retirement to make a little more money (he's worth around $150m). When my renewal came up, I was asked to agree to work on a daily rather than on an hourly rate -- fixed amount of money, unspecified number of hours -- because the company was finding that people were working loads of extra hours and billing for it. They wanted the extra work; but didn't want to pay for it. I declined, and left for other reasons.

But I didn't like the idea that the company was creating conditions where people had to work extra unpaid hours. The basic term of employment is that we sell our time for money. So to take our time and not pay us is theft. Anyhow I wrote an email to the head man and pointed out the effect. I got back an email saying blandly that he had a different opinion, and that there were 'sound commercial reasons' to set things up this way. I refrained from replying that the slave-trade might have said the same.

Is it desirable that wage-slaves, all paid a pittance, be compelled psychologically to work unpaid into the evenings so that this man should grow a little richer? I think not. Is it desirable that this man should have no fear of hell, in what he is doing? I do not see this.

I know that we all want to abolish hell, because we are afraid of going there. But just wishing does not affect our ultimate destination in anything, and meanwhile great evils are thereby done. Are not WE the victims?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RUmike · 03-18-2006, 02:44 PM

Hey Pyros, I had edited my post slightly and think you responded to its original version. Here is one point from the edit that I would like to make sure you see...

You wrote in your post, "I don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permenantly and forever gone into black void". But I also don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permanantly and forever suffering eternal pain and torment.

That is FAR worse than thinking they don't exist anymore. What happens when my father dies, and my mother -- a believer -- is convinced that her husband, the man that would have died for her, and who caused no harm to any other person on the planet, is suffering in eternal torment simply on account of an opinion? Wouldn't she much rather think that he slipped away into eternal sleep?

And how, once in heaven, can you possibly be infinitely happy knowing that millions upon millions of people -- and probably at least several whom you loved on earth -- are suffering eternally in hell?

I think you focus too much on the "good" part of the afterlife (heaven) and forget about the "bad" part (hell), particularly how it will affect those you love (and even those you don't love), and how that in turn would (should) affect you.

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Are we sure that it is an advance that the great and the good of our day should be certain that, whatever they do, they will face no accounting other than that of their peers, no judgement of their deeds, no punishment for any evil that they choose to do?

Phew! That opens up a whole new can-o-worms!

I think you are quite right, and there are some killers and such that I, at times, think should burn in everlasting hell.

However, my confusion about God and Hell lies in at least two areas:
1) Will God really send non-believers to eternal Hell because they couldn't figure out/understand the message he gave them?
2) Is eternal punishment for finite sins true justice? (the one thing I can think of here is that some sins can propagate, in a sense, and effect many others for long periods of time (perhaps perpetually?)

RUmike · 03-18-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is it desirable that wage-slaves, all paid a pittance, be compelled psychologically to work unpaid into the evenings so that this man should grow a little richer? I think not. Is it desirable that this man should have no fear of hell, in what he is doing? I do not see this.

In all probability, this man is a Christian who believes in hell. Regardless, we know that millions upon millions of hell-believing Christians perform awful acts everyday.

Quote:

I know that we all want to abolish hell, because we are afraid of going there. But just wishing does not affect our ultimate destination in anything, and meanwhile great evils are thereby done. Are not WE the victims?

I do not want to abolish hell out of fear, but out of the opinion that it is wrong, and that it subverts justice.

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

You wrote in your post, "I don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permenantly and forever gone into black void". But I also don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permanantly and forever suffering eternal pain and torment.

Thanks, I noticed.

See my post to Roger for my views (or should I say confusion) on this particular aspect. You are right, I don't wish an eternal fiery hell on almost anyone (i have a hard time not saying that certain killers, etc. might deserve it, as they do remove someone forever and therefore affect the world forever).

Quote:

I think you focus too much on the "good" part of the afterlife (heaven) and forget about the "bad" part (hell), particularly how it will affect those you love (and even those you don't love), and how that in turn would (should) affect you.

Maybe I do.... I suppose I have, in some ways, the same human but irrational feelings as Ingersoll when he says "What I deny is the immortality of pain, the eternity of torture."

View Poll Results: Should the Bible be used to deconvert Christians?
Yes, I believe it works.	83	82.18%
No, it won't help.	9	8.91%
Not sure.	9	8.91%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2006, 12:08 PM	#32
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	I think that if you use the Torah or the Greek Testsment or the Koran or Vedas or Dhammapda orAdi Granth or any other religious book you may appear to others as nothing more than cultural parasites. Judging by the atheistic input to this forum atheists seem to be obsessed with religion and the compulsion to clarify any of its obscure points. May I suggest the Little Red Book by the late Chairman Mao Tse-Tung as an suitable book from the atheistic stable? As a classical alternative the Frogs by Aristophanes in which the god Dionysus rows across the Styx to the accompaniment of a chorus croaking-brekekekex koax koax. The chorus is an early example of the cultural achievements of atheism and it could be played at a suitable time on your forum. brekekekex koax koax.!! A devastating multicultural, message to free all mankind from every religious evil.

03-18-2006, 02:44 PM	#37
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Hey Pyros, I had edited my post slightly and think you responded to its original version. Here is one point from the edit that I would like to make sure you see... You wrote in your post, "I don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permenantly and forever gone into black void". But I also don't know of anyone who can be consoled by the thought that someone they loved is permanantly and forever suffering eternal pain and torment. That is FAR worse than thinking they don't exist anymore. What happens when my father dies, and my mother -- a believer -- is convinced that her husband, the man that would have died for her, and who caused no harm to any other person on the planet, is suffering in eternal torment simply on account of an opinion? Wouldn't she much rather think that he slipped away into eternal sleep? And how, once in heaven, can you possibly be infinitely happy knowing that millions upon millions of people -- and probably at least several whom you loved on earth -- are suffering eternally in hell? I think you focus too much on the "good" part of the afterlife (heaven) and forget about the "bad" part (hell), particularly how it will affect those you love (and even those you don't love), and how that in turn would (should) affect you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.