xeren

Just so you know, thechort's brand of christianity teaches faith, not works are what saves you, so disbelief is enough for punishment in his book. And since this is not a discussion about what gets you into heaven, i think the discussion will get farther if we just take belief, not works, as given for the time being so that were on the same "footing", so to speak, as thechort.

Jamie_L

You've left out a possibility. Suppose B (or A even) seeks the evidence, weighs the evidence, and comes to a mistaken conclusion based on the evidence. Say his reason is faulty. Say he's not that bright. Say he is being pressured, manipulated, or propogandized. For whatever reasons, B just makes the wrong judgement based on the evidence available. Should that person be punished.

I would say no. If God gave them the evidence and also gave them the mental tools they have to work with, how can they be held responsible for their mistaken reasoning?

Most non-believers say they have sought evidence, have weighed what they found, and have honestly concluded there is no God - often after much internal strife. Anyone who proposes that these non-believers are lying has a burden to prove such.

Jamie

xeren

I just realized, yes, if God exists, and there is sufficient evidence for his existence, then a person would have to not be weighing the evidence correctly if he cannot force himself to believe in God. Necessarily, every person who knows about Christ's sacrifice, yet cannot force themselves believe, must be looking at the evidence available in a biased light, maybe because they don't want to believe.

I agree with you whole heartedly, given that god exists and that there is sufficent evidence.

But saying that everyone that doesn't believe despite the evidence must be biased against it and not want to believe assumes there is sufficient evidence, which is the one thing we cannot assume in a discussion in which we are assuming god exists, otherwise there is no discussion.

So you see, it is only true that the atheist is looking at the information with a biased view if there is sufficient evidence for the existence of god. But what if, contrary to your opinion, there isn't sufficent evidence for god's existence? I could just as easily say that you and everyone who believes in God must not be looking at the evidence clearly enough to realize there is not enough evidence for the existence of god, but you continue to believe because of some bias or simply because you want to believe in the existence of god.

Autonemesis

Why work? What if I want to be a bum?

If the meaning of existence is to be a good employee in God's corporation, I'm calling in sick. That has got to be the least convincing analogy ever thought of by anyone, anywhere.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I think there are things I could add to this discussion, but it was stated at the beginning that those points would 'derail' the thread, and that certain assumptions have been made.

I think those assumptions are baseless/arbitrary.

But, I'm sitting this one out, nonetheless.

Keith.

Unum

But what if one of the main aspects of receiving a promotion is a never-ending look for that office? The employee might not ever find it, but that doesn't mean it's not there and shouldn't be looked for. We might not ever find perfection, but it shouldn't stop us from seeking perfection.

Also, yes there are documents definitely written in a fellow employees hand, that doesn't mean that they are forged however. These documents might be an earnest attempt by the employee to explain to you where they found the manager's office. The thing is, you'll never find the office exactly where they found it as you and the author are different. The way to the office might not be the same but the office itself is the same. Also, to claim for certain that these documents are forged is ridiculous. Until one knows everything, one can't be certain on anything, one can only offer an opinion.

No, a lack of recognition does not warrant these things. But a lack of recognition also does not warrant a promotion or bonus either. If a lack of recognition does lead to the employee acting in a detrimental way to the company, then that employee should expect a demotion or cut in pay. The bed we make, is the bed we sleep in.

It might be silly, but it is hardly sad. For all we know, it might be truth.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

This boss that I am talking about does exactly what you are saying. It rewards people for their contributions to the company. No amount of bootlicking or ass-kissing will get anyone further up the chain. It's all based on the ability to produce the product desired.

To bring this back to the main point of this thread, someone who is not contributing is not going to get rewarded, however they might see others around them getting rewarded and think they are being unjustly punished. However, they are not being punished, they are just not being rewarded. Why should anyone expect to live in paradise, if they don't want to do anything to reach this paradise?

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Go ahead, be bum. No one is making you work. That's the beauty of it, it's completely your choice. However, if you choose not to work don't expect to have rewards, promotions and bonuses just handed to you. What's ironic however, is that many of the people who have received the most bonuses and promotions are people who were able to do nothing for long periods of time. Some of these people were able to go days without moving, without eating, without drinking all the while thinking of nothing. The boss that I am talking about has everything. The only thing you can get for someone who has everything is nothing. That's exactly what some of these people gave. Giving absolutely nothing is much, much harder than you think.

Peace,

Unum

parkdalian

Heaven/Hell is a punishment/reward system. The main problem in comparing Hell/Heaven to a human punishment/reward system is that, in our case, it happens to be virtually the only means we have at our disposal to protect ourselves and keep the peace. We punish people as a deterrent to crime, for self-protection. Those acts of punishement, which would be consisdered immoral in any other context, are carried out if for no other rational reason than to maintain the credibility of the deterrent. It's never good to cause suffering, but we do it anyway because we have few if any other means of behavior modification and also, incarceration or the death penalty has the added bonus of physically removing the threat to society (of course, torture and monetary fines don't accomplish the latter).

We also punish out of pure revenge. The primitive instinct of revenge is to strike back, as an animal does to defend itself or its young. The revenge motivation may be emotional and irrational, but the evolved instinct has a rational purpose as outlined above.

Presumably, God has other means at his disposal.

For starters he could make himself more apparent than he has. God could be an everyday thing, just like waking up and seeing the sun in the sky. We'd believe in God for sure. He could teach us wisdom directly, and we'd be better able to avoid evil deeds. He could provide every child with good, loving families or give everyone equal intelligence and moral judgement. But such is not the case. Instead we have a God consistently making his pronouncements about his own reality through a few "chosen" human intermediaries. As a result, belief in God widely varies statistically from nation to nation. (God belief is below 50 percent in France--so if I'm born in France I'm more likely to go to Hell?) What God apparently wants varies from culture to culture. Some Christians believe in Hell, some don't.

As for bias in the reasoning of atheists, I may admit to such bias, but at the same time, I would also insist that I never planned to have that bias in the first place. I know I don't deserve Hell because my own lack of belief does no harm as far as I can tell and I know I am compelled by my own best judgement, however flawed it may be, that both God and Hell is a myth. I've been wrong before, you've been wrong before, we are human.

What remains is that I and other atheists have no fear of going to Hell (it doesn't exist, I don't deserve it) so the punishment threat lacks any credible coercive power to make me believe in God. In fact it is actually counter-productive, in order to encourage belief, to unjustly threaten eternal punishment for finite misdeeds or innocent mistakes in judgement.

The two ideas, God and Heaven/Hell are believed and presented by Christians as being related. However, for the atheist, you can't justly and credibly threaten people with Hell for not believing in God if they don't believe in it or God from the outset. Similarly, you can't rationally dangle an invisible carrot (Heaven) in order to promote belief in an invisible being. One fantastic claim can't justify belief in another, and threats in particular should be regarded with suspicion. Pyramid schemes and chain letters that promise riches if passed on but threaten serious bad luck if ignored has a similar psychological effect. You either accept one of the unsupported assertions (or both) and you pass on the letter to other potential victims--or you reject it as total nonsense and throw it in the garbage.

doc58

thechort,
I have a couple of things for you to think about.

No one beyond the severely mentally ill would deny the existence of trees. God could, without effort, cause his existence to be as clear as the existence of trees. You would know He has done this when everyone, beyond the severely mentally ill, believes. Remember, He could do this without effort, without interfering with free will. After all knowing trees exist doesn't interfere with free will. Obviously, if God exists, He has chosen to not make his existence that obvious. No one should be punished for not believing in God when God chooses to not reveal himself as clearly as trees when he could easily do so.

What if a muslim were to say to you - "You are ignoring the obvious truth of Islam. The evidence is there but you refuse to believe it."? What would you reply?
Or what if an atheist said, "You are ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for God. You refuse to acknowledge this because you so desperately want to believe in God to fulfill a psychological need." What would you say?