I agree absolutely about assuming someone is telling the truth. I avoid dishonesty as best as I possibly can at all times and I expect as much from others. There is a world of difference however between assuming someone is being honest and assuming someone is always right.
No, God did not tell us any such thing. An ancient document in some foreign language contains the warning. It is one of several ancient documents in foreign languages that contain various contradictory warnings. You believe the Bible but you don't believe the sacred texts of the Egyptians or the Aztecs or the Romans, or the Maori or any other of the worlds various religions.
Which one is right? If God wanted to clarify for us he is more than capable of literally manifesting himself to the people of Earth and putting and end once and for all to all the bitter disagreements. He has done no such thing so clearly he is not really putting much effort into saving people from the mistake of disbelief.
I know what you are now thinking. Oh just wait, he's going to do just that, Revelations, the end times and all. So my presponse to that would be first off that does nothing for all millions of nonbelievers who already died. Secondly, get back to me when it happens. Literally every generation since Christ has had believers who insisted that we were living in the end times. Even the apostles who lived with him thought he was going to return before they died. People are going to hell by the millions each year. What's he waiting for? Again that goes back to my original point, he's obviously not trying very hard to save people from damnation.
That is circular reasoning. All of the reasons you provide are only worth something if you are assuming that the Bible is accurate.
If I said I was perfectly reliable and accurate, would you believe me? Obviously you should because a perfectly reliable and accurate source would not say it if it wasn't true, right?
That's the same argument you are making for the Bible being accurate.
Would be nice if it was true, but I don't imagine that idea will get the backing of any churches. If the odds of going to hell are the slim anyway, who would need the churchs?
I don't have time for a reply right now, but I wanted to thank you for all of your thoughtful responses. I'll try to get back to this again after work.
Funny you should mention that book! I read The Minds I almost 10 years ago and it was a huge influence on my views on religion, god, and probably everything else. It was hard to read at times because it caused me to rethink a lot of what I had believed growing up, but at the same time it was such an amazing feeling. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. At the time I actually kept a copy of Hofstadter's GEB next to my bed as some people do with their Bible!
I don't remember that particular essay, but maybe parts of took up residence somewhere in my subconscious mind. I definatly ought to read it again.
Of course, the difference between you and I in that discussion is that (I assume) you doubt that Jesus' interactions with the pharisees took place, or at least, that they didn't take place in the way recorded in the Bible. Basically that's right, but more to the point I just don't see the pharisees of the Bible as relevant to the discussion. Maybe they were willing to trade their influence on earth for an afterlife in paradise, but I'm really talking about the majority of the worlds non-believes who never had the benefit of direct interaction with Christ. Everyone today can only base their decision to believe or not to believe on ancient apocryphal texts instead of the primary sources available to the pharisees.
As if that alone wasn't hard enough to have faith in, there is no shortage of equally ancient and apocryphal texts from countless other religions all claiming to be true. Maybe we can look at the Pharisees in the Bible and rightfully say they were fools if the stories in the Bible are accurate, but things aren't nearly so simple for us contemporary skeptics.
The only time my description would necessarily fit an atheist was if the atheist knew Christianity was correct, but kept up their atheism all the same, which were the parameters the grandparent put forward And that's exactly where we disagree. I'm saying that never happens.
Not once.
Not ever in the whole existence of the human race.
If I'm wrong maybe you could provide an example of someone who did reject salvation with the full certainty that their choice would lead them straight to eternal damnation. You know why I know it never happened? Because no one has ever proven Christianity correct. The major tenet of the religion is that it is based in faith and so it is admittedly not provable. That being the case I don't believe that anyone who may have ever gone to hell has ever done so with the full certainty of such a fate. Seriously, who would? Yeah ok, people are stubborn and maybe their are a few people who would rather drive over a cliff than lose a match of Chicken, but the number of people like that are so insignificant they aren't even worth mention when talking about the millions of rational atheists and infidels in the world.
WTF? This is insightful? First of all claimee is not a word, and even if it was I think you would be applying it to God so I'll let him respond in his own post.
But you are right that the burden of proof in on the claimant in any argument, so how does that make agnosticism a logically untenable position? Agnostics don't make any claims, we just sit back watching theists and atheists debating each other and say to ourselves "where's the beef?"
As a somewhat atheistic agnostic I would go further and say that atheists aren't making any claims either, it is solely up to the theists to support their belief in a god with evidence. If they can't come up with anything than the default position that there is no god would have to be assumed. That much you can't dispute, as Richard Dawkins said "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I have yet to meet a single person who expressed his or her disbelief in ferries, or any other mode of marine transportation. I'll say it, I don't believe in ferries or catamarans. No way, not a chance in hell. I am willing to accept the possibility of pontoons, but not without a great deal of skepticism.
Ahh, so one reminder seven thousand years ago in a document in an obscure language is sufficient notice when the fate of someones eternal soul is on the line? I think an almighty god could try a little bit harder if he really cared about his children.
And you're extension to the analogy doesn't make sense either since god doesn't pick up all the none believers after they die give them a stern talking to and drop them off at heaven, does he? Well, maybe he does but that isn't Christianity.
You claim it's arrogance, but I'm not buying it. Take me for instance, I was raised as a true believe in a fundamentalist Baptist church. If I was arrogant and stubborn I would still be believing what I believed when I was a teen. Instead I have slowly been won over by the arguments that the Bible is not infallible and God is probably just a myth. BTW, that change in belief happened very begrudgingly at first, so you may be right. Maybe I was pretty stubborn as a Baptist.
To me none believers seem much more like people using their god given judgment the best they can given the lack of evidence as opposed to the stubborn arrogant gits you are implying. Admit it, if there is a god he sure doesn't make his existence obvious, does he? If he made all the stars, how hard would it have been to put up a few that spelled out "believe in me or go to hell", or how about making a monthly appearance in the skies over Israel reminding his chosen people of their covenant? Yet he does none of these things, so if anyone happens to have doubts about his existence maybe it's not stubbornness or wrongheadedness, maybe it's just a best effort at making sense of the world.
It seems to be that the free will thing is a bit of a red herring. You don't really need to take away someones free will in order to prevent them from going to hell.
Say you have a car a car with bad brakes. Someone in your family needs to borrow a car so you see them reaching for the keys of the faulty car. Do you stop them from taking those keys and inform them that they need to take another car until that one is fixed, or do you let them go ahead and say to yourself "well they made the choice to take a car with no brakes, it must be what they want."
I think the answer here is pretty obvious and no one will get pissed at you for infringing on their autonomy if you don't let them take those keys.
Sorry, that doesn't work. No reasonable and informed person would ever choose hell. If Christianity is right and people are going to hell it is either because they are not mentally capable of making the right decision or not enough information has been provided to them to make the correct decision. Either way, it's not their fault.
I know apologists like to say if God made it so that everyone would go to heaven than we wouldn't have free will. So what? I would never leave a bottle of rat poison in the fridge just so a child would be able to freely choose between drinking that or orange juice. Free will (or the illusion thereof) is great for most things, but it is not responsible or the right thing to do to offer someone a choice in a situation where there is an obvious right or wrong answer (e.g. OJ v. cyanide, eternity in heaven v. eternal torment).
Ah ha, you're the kind of nutcase! Nice to meet you.
I find it interesting that I don't ever recall coming across that form of etc in any books. Is it more common in some fields that I perhaps haven't done much reading on?
It's also not uncommon to see it abbreviated as &c What sort of nutcase would abbreviate etc as &c? It's not all that common so it's more confusing, it's only marginally shorter, it's harder to type and for myself it's harder to write since I so rarely write & by hand. Where's the advantage?
Re:Pronunciation?
on
Define - /etc?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
"etsee" and "sequel" may be 'faster'... but that's really just an excuse to act like you're a part of an elite club. And what about those admins using vi instead pico or notepad? Is that also just an excuse to act like we're part of an elite club?
Honestly people call/etc "etsee" because that's what it's called. Computers are literal, if it was supposed to be called "etcetera" it would be spelled out that way.
Flickr has shown us the originality is a lost art. YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent. And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree absolutely about assuming someone is telling the truth. I avoid dishonesty as best as I possibly can at all times and I expect as much from others. There is a world of difference however between assuming someone is being honest and assuming someone is always right.
No, God did not tell us any such thing. An ancient document in some foreign language contains the warning. It is one of several ancient documents in foreign languages that contain various contradictory warnings. You believe the Bible but you don't believe the sacred texts of the Egyptians or the Aztecs or the Romans, or the Maori or any other of the worlds various religions.
Which one is right? If God wanted to clarify for us he is more than capable of literally manifesting himself to the people of Earth and putting and end once and for all to all the bitter disagreements. He has done no such thing so clearly he is not really putting much effort into saving people from the mistake of disbelief.
I know what you are now thinking. Oh just wait, he's going to do just that, Revelations, the end times and all. So my presponse to that would be first off that does nothing for all millions of nonbelievers who already died. Secondly, get back to me when it happens. Literally every generation since Christ has had believers who insisted that we were living in the end times. Even the apostles who lived with him thought he was going to return before they died. People are going to hell by the millions each year. What's he waiting for? Again that goes back to my original point, he's obviously not trying very hard to save people from damnation.
That is circular reasoning. All of the reasons you provide are only worth something if you are assuming that the Bible is accurate.
If I said I was perfectly reliable and accurate, would you believe me? Obviously you should because a perfectly reliable and accurate source would not say it if it wasn't true, right?
That's the same argument you are making for the Bible being accurate.
Would be nice if it was true, but I don't imagine that idea will get the backing of any churches. If the odds of going to hell are the slim anyway, who would need the churchs?
I don't have time for a reply right now, but I wanted to thank you for all of your thoughtful responses. I'll try to get back to this again after work.
I guess maybe the OT stories of war and vengeance get the kids attention better in Sunday School. Who are we kidding, the adults like them better too.
Funny you should mention that book! I read The Minds I almost 10 years ago and it was a huge influence on my views on religion, god, and probably everything else. It was hard to read at times because it caused me to rethink a lot of what I had believed growing up, but at the same time it was such an amazing feeling. I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. At the time I actually kept a copy of Hofstadter's GEB next to my bed as some people do with their Bible!
I don't remember that particular essay, but maybe parts of took up residence somewhere in my subconscious mind. I definatly ought to read it again.
As if that alone wasn't hard enough to have faith in, there is no shortage of equally ancient and apocryphal texts from countless other religions all claiming to be true. Maybe we can look at the Pharisees in the Bible and rightfully say they were fools if the stories in the Bible are accurate, but things aren't nearly so simple for us contemporary skeptics.
Not once.
Not ever in the whole existence of the human race.
If I'm wrong maybe you could provide an example of someone who did reject salvation with the full certainty that their choice would lead them straight to eternal damnation. You know why I know it never happened? Because no one has ever proven Christianity correct. The major tenet of the religion is that it is based in faith and so it is admittedly not provable. That being the case I don't believe that anyone who may have ever gone to hell has ever done so with the full certainty of such a fate. Seriously, who would? Yeah ok, people are stubborn and maybe their are a few people who would rather drive over a cliff than lose a match of Chicken, but the number of people like that are so insignificant they aren't even worth mention when talking about the millions of rational atheists and infidels in the world.
WTF? This is insightful? First of all claimee is not a word, and even if it was I think you would be applying it to God so I'll let him respond in his own post.
But you are right that the burden of proof in on the claimant in any argument, so how does that make agnosticism a logically untenable position? Agnostics don't make any claims, we just sit back watching theists and atheists debating each other and say to ourselves "where's the beef?"
As a somewhat atheistic agnostic I would go further and say that atheists aren't making any claims either, it is solely up to the theists to support their belief in a god with evidence. If they can't come up with anything than the default position that there is no god would have to be assumed. That much you can't dispute, as Richard Dawkins said "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I am willing to accept the possibility of pontoons, but not without a great deal of skepticism.
Damnit! I can't do it
Ahh, so one reminder seven thousand years ago in a document in an obscure language is sufficient notice when the fate of someones eternal soul is on the line? I think an almighty god could try a little bit harder if he really cared about his children.
And you're extension to the analogy doesn't make sense either since god doesn't pick up all the none believers after they die give them a stern talking to and drop them off at heaven, does he? Well, maybe he does but that isn't Christianity.
You claim it's arrogance, but I'm not buying it. Take me for instance, I was raised as a true believe in a fundamentalist Baptist church. If I was arrogant and stubborn I would still be believing what I believed when I was a teen. Instead I have slowly been won over by the arguments that the Bible is not infallible and God is probably just a myth. BTW, that change in belief happened very begrudgingly at first, so you may be right. Maybe I was pretty stubborn as a Baptist.
To me none believers seem much more like people using their god given judgment the best they can given the lack of evidence as opposed to the stubborn arrogant gits you are implying. Admit it, if there is a god he sure doesn't make his existence obvious, does he? If he made all the stars, how hard would it have been to put up a few that spelled out "believe in me or go to hell", or how about making a monthly appearance in the skies over Israel reminding his chosen people of their covenant? Yet he does none of these things, so if anyone happens to have doubts about his existence maybe it's not stubbornness or wrongheadedness, maybe it's just a best effort at making sense of the world.
Oh we could make a god who was better than us, but who would want to? If god is flawed it's that much easier to justify our own flaws.
It seems to be that the free will thing is a bit of a red herring. You don't really need to take away someones free will in order to prevent them from going to hell.
Say you have a car a car with bad brakes. Someone in your family needs to borrow a car so you see them reaching for the keys of the faulty car. Do you stop them from taking those keys and inform them that they need to take another car until that one is fixed, or do you let them go ahead and say to yourself "well they made the choice to take a car with no brakes, it must be what they want."
I think the answer here is pretty obvious and no one will get pissed at you for infringing on their autonomy if you don't let them take those keys.
Sorry, that doesn't work. No reasonable and informed person would ever choose hell. If Christianity is right and people are going to hell it is either because they are not mentally capable of making the right decision or not enough information has been provided to them to make the correct decision. Either way, it's not their fault.
I know apologists like to say if God made it so that everyone would go to heaven than we wouldn't have free will. So what? I would never leave a bottle of rat poison in the fridge just so a child would be able to freely choose between drinking that or orange juice. Free will (or the illusion thereof) is great for most things, but it is not responsible or the right thing to do to offer someone a choice in a situation where there is an obvious right or wrong answer (e.g. OJ v. cyanide, eternity in heaven v. eternal torment).
Ah ha, you're the kind of nutcase! Nice to meet you.
I find it interesting that I don't ever recall coming across that form of etc in any books. Is it more common in some fields that I perhaps haven't done much reading on?
Honestly people call
I've never seen a /usr/home directory. Isn't /export/home the standard location for local homes in Solaris?
That deserves a "+1 Excuse me while I go cry now" mod.
YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent. And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?
Troll? WTF? Well, I appreciated your self deprecating humor/honesty.
Give credit where credit's due man, that's taken from a Family Guy episode.