FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-30-2002, 01:48 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Easy Street
Posts: 736
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pz
Religion is not comparable to food. You die without the latter, but you thrive without the former.
Is it not possible to thrive with religion? If not could you please demonstrate that a secular life is preferable to a religious one?
Odemus is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:14 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lamma
I find the idea of "you get to do the good stuff when you're dead, so don't do it while you're alive" to be incredibly distasteful. To me, it smacks of death worship.
I don't know of any Christians who believes in not doing things now because we'll be able to do them in heaven. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. If it's a sin now it's always going to be a sin; if it's allowable in heaven why not now?

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 03:46 PM   #43
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pz
[


Religion is not comparable to food. You die without the latter, but you thrive without the former. [/B]
Hello pz : do you also include faith in your statement? as a matter of personal choice, one can thrive without faith. However other individuals thrive thru their faith. I think it is prudent to not generalize to all human beings one's personal experience.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:05 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Superior, CO USA
Posts: 1,553
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenM

An atheist whose approach is "I only believe what I can understand/explain/rationalize/analyze" is going to rule out things Christian believe simply because of the atheist's approach. The question is - is it wise or foolish to limit one's beliefs in this way or not? And the answer of course is different depending whether you ask the question of an atheist or a Christian.

Helen
Helen, I agree with you on this, but I don't think my position is just because I'm an atheist. Basically, I'd like to raise two points:

1) No where, outside of religion, are people encouraged to believe in things that they can't understand or explain. I can't explain psychics, so should I spend $3.99 a minute to gain their insights? And if not, why should I spend far more time and money accepting a Christian explanation that can not be analyzed and explained?

2) The basic appeal of Christianity is to one's selfishness -- believe in this and you'll get eternal life as God's free gift. It's a con man's dream. Why should I trust an unanalyzable message that is designed to appeal to my worst self-interest?
Family Man is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:53 PM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: inside a human
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pz
[B]This presupposes that the confabulations of a few tribes of pastoral nomads are truths. They are not.
Let's put it to the test then. What modern creed which pertains to the treatment of others is any greater than "Treat others as you would like to be treated". It would seem that a great many of our laws as well as social behaviors can be said to encompass this early creed.
post-it is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 08:07 PM   #46
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the Bible Belt (TN hole)
Posts: 317
Default

Because I'm basically stupid, it took works of fiction to make me comprehend just how horrible it would be to live on and on and on and on...

Anne Rice's early Vampire Chronicles gave me my first glimpse into how bad it could be. (Her later installments gave me my first glimpses of how bad her writing could be. But I digress.)

Duncan Idaho was another fictional character that I felt sorry for. Oh sure, it was great for the reader to know that this hero would return... but poor him!

So yeah... living forever sounds like a bummer, but (agreeing with someone up-thread) being allowed to live until you get bored would be great.
SharonDee is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 08:25 PM   #47
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: inside a human
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SharonDee
Because I'm basically stupid, it took works of fiction to make me comprehend just how horrible it would be to live on and on and on and on...

So yeah... living forever sounds like a bummer, but (agreeing with someone up-thread) being allowed to live until you get bored would be great.
You are presupposing that eternal life would be limited in experience and limited in awareness along with other human limitations. It would be impossible for one to understand whether boredom would exist for at spiritual being or not. Certainly the life for a vampire would become dull since the earth and its contents are limited; a prison as such.
post-it is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 08:34 PM   #48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: inside a human
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Family Man
1) No where, outside of religion, are people encouraged to believe in things that they can't understand or explain.
... LOVE comes to mind. My kid come to mind. My job follows a close 3rd.


Quote:
2) The basic appeal of Christianity is to one's selfishness -- believe in this and you'll get eternal life as God's free gift. It's a con man's dream. Why should I trust an unanalyzable message that is designed to appeal to my worst self-interest? [/B]
I think the eternal life is just a free bonus. To be a Christian is to want to have a certain moral code with the understanding that happiness in our existing life is the reward. It's nothing different than for the atheist. You have adopted a certain moral code with the same understanding of its rewards. As an atheist, you know you may not have eternal life or you might, but it isn't dependent on your existing life. There is such a small difference between the two of us.
post-it is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 08:34 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: St Louis MO USA
Posts: 1,188
Default

For me, it's not that living for all eternity is a dreadful idea... it's that the concept is preposterous.

How do you imagine your life trillions of years from now, Post-it?
cricket is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 08:41 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: St Louis MO USA
Posts: 1,188
Default

Quote:
As an atheist, you know you may not have eternal life or you might, but it isn't dependent on your existing life.
I may have an eternal life? I don't think so. This eternal life that won't happen -- it isn't dependent on my existing life?

If it doesn't exist then indeed it isn't dependent. But what are you saying?
cricket is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.