Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Makavali · November 3, 2010, 8:52pm

[quote]kamui wrote:
why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic. [/quote]

Because children form ideas later in life and tend to break away from bad ones. If you add in something like hell, it’s more likely that they will continue to believe in the fairy tale. It’s about reinforcing the belief in the mind of a child so that when they become an adult, they keep the “faith”, or tend to come back to it should they stray. The fact that most people remain in the faith of their parents should tell you a lot.

Parent: BELIEVE IN GOD! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Parent: GOD CREATED HELL! IF YOU DO THAT GOD WILL SEND YOU THERE!

Parent: THE CHURCH IS YOUR KEY TO SALVATION! IT CAN STOP YOU GOING TO HELL!

Church: THE CHURCH NEEDS MONEY! And for only a lifetime of easy payments of 20% of your salary, you too can own beachfront property in heaven! But that’s not all, as a sign of our thanks, we’ll also throw in this state of the art hotplate! Call now!

forlife · November 3, 2010, 9:07pm

Morals are prescriptive, not descriptive. We’re not talking about how well people live up to their morals, but rather about how the morals themselves are derived.

There is no reason people need to believe in a supernatural entity in order to have deep moral convictions. Doing the right thing for its own sake is more admirable than out of a selfish desire to reap divine rewards.

Not to say all religious people act out of self-interest. Many do these things for the right reason as well, irrespective of any personal reward they may get. Which further proves my point that the promise of divine rewards and punishments is unnecessary for people to make moral choices.

Sloth · November 3, 2010, 9:20pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Nazi guard who shoots Jews or loads them into the oven and then goes home to be a loving father to his children is a perfect example of the disconnect provided by religion.[/quote]

Your statement indicates that non-religious atheism has a set of doctrines and dogmas outside of a lack of belief in God(s). If you could please share them with us, it would be so very helpful. And, while doing so perhaps you could indicate which doctrines, when transgressed, leads to the excommunication of the athiest, into the arms of religion. Lastly, if you might—and I realize this might require a lengthy post–speak to the body, or person, who makes this this excommunication official. I assume, this wouldn’t be you. But if so, why what a fortuitous board we are, to have the Pope of Atheism with us today.

Sloth · November 3, 2010, 9:20pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Doing the right thing for its own sake is more admirable than out of a selfish desire to reap divine rewards.[/quote]

This feels alot like defining a word, with the word. What is the the “right” thing? Who said it was?

What’s the right reason?

kamui · November 3, 2010, 9:33pm

about nazism and morality, a little story :

i’m bearded, and when i’m outside, i usually wear a brown vest and a hat. generally a Guerra.

a few weeks ago, i was in the bus. i heard a little feminine voice behind me whispering “look, look, there is a Jerusalem in the bus”.

it was a young teenage girl, maybe 12 year old. she was speaking to another 12 year old girl.
she was mistaken me with an hassidic Jew.

she said it with a little laugh, hiding her face behind her hand.
but she said it louder enough for i may hear it.

her expression was showing both shame and pleasure. a transgressive pleasure, produced by the breaking of a social taboo.

she knew it was bad.
indeed, it felt so good because it was so bad.

years before Auschwitz, there were the same laughs and whispers in the streets of Germany.

the whispers then became articles, drawings, discussions.
then they became discourses, propaganda, the howlings of the Furher.

the mere whispers already felt good.
But now, it was even better.
the trangression was still a transgression, but now, it was an open, collective, massive trangression.

a gangbang of mockery.

and then it became the norm.
and for some of them, a job.

evil, when it starts, can look as innocent as a cute little gossip girl in a bus.

forlife · November 3, 2010, 9:35pm

Sloth, the right reason is to do a moral act for the sake of the act itself, and not with the ulterior motive of getting a divine reward for doing so.

ZEB · November 3, 2010, 9:39pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic. [/quote]

Because children form ideas later in life and tend to break away from bad ones. If you add in something like hell, it’s more likely that they will continue to believe in the fairy tale. It’s about reinforcing the belief in the mind of a child so that when they become an adult, they keep the “faith”, or tend to come back to it should they stray. The fact that most people remain in the faith of their parents should tell you a lot.

Parent: BELIEVE IN GOD! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Parent: GOD CREATED HELL! IF YOU DO THAT GOD WILL SEND YOU THERE!

Parent: THE CHURCH IS YOUR KEY TO SALVATION! IT CAN STOP YOU GOING TO HELL!

Church: THE CHURCH NEEDS MONEY! And for only a lifetime of easy payments of 20% of your salary, you too can own beachfront property in heaven! But that’s not all, as a sign of our thanks, we’ll also throw in this state of the art hotplate! Call now![/quote]

Any parent that would tell a child that the Church is the key to salvation does not understand Christianity.

Sloth · November 3, 2010, 10:07pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, the right reason is to do a moral act for the sake of the act itself, and not with the ulterior motive of getting a divine reward for doing so.[/quote]

We should do a thing just to do the thing.

Magicpunch · November 3, 2010, 10:36pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
pink unicorn[/quote]

I guess we’re not talking about Christianity anymore? Tell me again which religion believes in pink unicorns?[/quote]

Atheist joke. Not really funny, just topical.

kamui · November 3, 2010, 10:47pm

as we all know, unicorns are white by nature.

if a pink unicorn existed, it would be teratologic specimen.

therefore a pink unicorn deity is logically impossible.

ZEB · November 3, 2010, 10:46pm

[quote]forlife wrote:

There is no reason people need to believe in a supernatural entity in order to have deep moral convictions. Doing the right thing for its own sake is more admirable than out of a selfish desire to reap divine rewards.

Not to say all religious people act out of self-interest. Many do these things for the right reason as well, irrespective of any personal reward they may get. Which further proves my point that the promise of divine rewards and punishments is unnecessary for people to make moral choices.[/quote]

There you go again. As if doing something kind does not carry with it a good feeling. Hence, you are right back where you started which is doing something good in order to get something. Perhaps we are hardwired to react in that way. And perhaps that’s why there is an eternal reward or punishment. God may have designed us in just that fashion that we feel good when we do good. Is it selfish to want to help others because we know we’re going to feel good after? Just maybe you don’t understand this vast universe as well as you think you do.

ephrem · November 3, 2010, 11:05pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

So, does it go both ways? Can you think of a situation in which discriminating against another group would be “right?” I’m not talking about protecting oneself, because I am pretty sure that is not what the nightclub owner had in mind. What I mean is, since it’s all relative, is it possible there is place or a time or a state that would allow for blatant discrimination against another group? Another race?

[/quote]

…i see no problem with being intolerant of intolerance. The easy way out of blaming others for my problems, that’s not me. But i don’t think that a system that allows for certain freedoms should have those freedoms used against itself, in order to bring it down. I can’t think of another scenario, to be honest…[/quote]

So, if we define intolerance here as: denying rights or privileges to a certain group of people based upon strictly superficial reasons (different color of skin, for instance) and for no other reason, may I then assume you believe that intolerance is wrong in any case?

Maybe I’m working too hard recently, but I’m having trouble understanding both of your last posts. If you could clarify I’d appreciate it. [/quote]

Not in any case. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I don’t know what more to say.
[/quote]

Re-read my definition. Intolerance is not a group of people nor can it be disenfranchised.
[/quote]

Then i don’t understand what you’re getting at.

Brother_Chris · November 4, 2010, 1:58am

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

Maybe you should read it then, because I answered your question.

You’re soul is judged and you are either sent to Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso depending on the state of your soul when you die. No, the fire and heat will not be punishmen when it is just our souls. However, we will have a more intense hatred of God, a more vivide concsiousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion…basically our souls will be tortured. After the final judgement (see bolded and underlined section that you conveniently did not read) our bodies are brought to us to either burn in inferno, or to worship the Lord in Paradiso.

I would think such an educated person would have read Dante’s Divine Comedies, but I guess not. Otherwise you’d know how the Church views Hell (Inferno), Purgatory (Purgatorio), and Heaven (Paradiso). Clarify, no the Divine Comedies are not Dogma.[/quote]

I read, you could have been a lot clearer though…

In complete respect and honesty for your beliefs - hell sounds more like a medieval tactic to scare people into the church, given it was the place where revenues were raised(not saying they did good/bad thing with the money) - and money = power…its just people are either not afraid, lazy, or dont care about religion anymore hence increasing numbers of atheists. Religion now don’t have the money, and have decreasing power/influence.

Dont yell straw man or red herring at me, its a legitimate argument[/quote]

So what you’re saying is it’s not a matter if the Church teaches truth, but because people are becoming indifferent.

Yes, it does sound like a medieval tactic, however the philosophy of hell is much older than that. The reason why it sounds like it is a medieval tactic is because it was expounded on during that time period. I’m not sure how the Church would make money on hell though. How would they make money on that?

Actually religion is very powerful monetary wise, JW (even though they hate Catholics) are one of the richest organizations in NYC. The Catholic Church’s charities is the most powerful collective charity in the world.

Brother_Chris · November 4, 2010, 2:01am

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Faith is a major wedge between ethics and suffering - where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religion still maintains that the actions are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy,homosexuality, masturbation). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance, their causes are deemed to be “good” (withholding funding for family planning in the third world, prosecuting non-violent drug offenders, preventing stem cell research etc).

The inversion of priorities not only squanders resources and victimizes innocent people, it falsifies our ethics. A more reasonable approach to matters of right and wrong is sorely needed.[/quote]

Sodomy and masturbation are considered evil because it doesn’t allow for the possibility of life.[/quote]

So if a guy rubs one out in his own home, alone, this is a crime worthy of your judgment? Of two consenting adults practice anal or oral sex in their own home, alone, this is a crime worthy of your attention? If a guy tokes up in his own home on the weekend, gets REAAAAL high and falls asleep, this is a crime?[/quote]

I’m not following your first question, maybe I am just reading it weird. If two consenting adults that are married are practicing anal or oral, but the man ejaculates into the vagina, no foul done.

Yes, in America in certain places if you smoke weed you’re committing a crime.

Brother_Chris · November 4, 2010, 2:07am

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic. [/quote]

Because children form ideas later in life and tend to break away from bad ones. If you add in something like hell, it’s more likely that they will continue to believe in the fairy tale. It’s about reinforcing the belief in the mind of a child so that when they become an adult, they keep the “faith”, or tend to come back to it should they stray. The fact that most people remain in the faith of their parents should tell you a lot.

Parent: BELIEVE IN GOD! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Parent: GOD CREATED HELL! IF YOU DO THAT GOD WILL SEND YOU THERE!

Parent: THE CHURCH IS YOUR KEY TO SALVATION! IT CAN STOP YOU GOING TO HELL!

Church: THE CHURCH NEEDS MONEY! And for only a lifetime of easy payments of 20% of your salary, you too can own beachfront property in heaven! But that’s not all, as a sign of our thanks, we’ll also throw in this state of the art hotplate! Call now![/quote]

Any parent that would tell a child that the Church is the key to salvation does not understand Christianity.
[/quote]

…I’m shocked, I thought Mak was a little less sensitive than this. I also thought he was more educated. Christ saves us, it is done through the Church yes, because he speaks through His church. However, the Church does not inherently have saving powers, it all comes from Jesus.

And second, the Church has never said you can buy yourself out of going to Hell.

ZEB · November 4, 2010, 2:23am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic. [/quote]

Because children form ideas later in life and tend to break away from bad ones. If you add in something like hell, it’s more likely that they will continue to believe in the fairy tale. It’s about reinforcing the belief in the mind of a child so that when they become an adult, they keep the “faith”, or tend to come back to it should they stray. The fact that most people remain in the faith of their parents should tell you a lot.

Parent: BELIEVE IN GOD! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Parent: GOD CREATED HELL! IF YOU DO THAT GOD WILL SEND YOU THERE!

Parent: THE CHURCH IS YOUR KEY TO SALVATION! IT CAN STOP YOU GOING TO HELL!

Church: THE CHURCH NEEDS MONEY! And for only a lifetime of easy payments of 20% of your salary, you too can own beachfront property in heaven! But that’s not all, as a sign of our thanks, we’ll also throw in this state of the art hotplate! Call now![/quote]

Any parent that would tell a child that the Church is the key to salvation does not understand Christianity.
[/quote]

…I’m shocked, I thought Mak was a little less sensitive than this. I also thought he was more educated. Christ saves us, it is done through the Church yes, because he speaks through His church. However, the Church does not inherently have saving powers, it all comes from Jesus.

And second, the Church has never said you can buy yourself out of going to Hell.[/quote]

Most atheists that I’ve spoken with have never really fully read and understood the Bible. There does seem to be some evidence of that in his posts.

krsoneeeee · November 4, 2010, 3:39am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

Maybe you should read it then, because I answered your question.

You’re soul is judged and you are either sent to Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso depending on the state of your soul when you die. No, the fire and heat will not be punishmen when it is just our souls. However, we will have a more intense hatred of God, a more vivide concsiousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion…basically our souls will be tortured. After the final judgement (see bolded and underlined section that you conveniently did not read) our bodies are brought to us to either burn in inferno, or to worship the Lord in Paradiso.

I would think such an educated person would have read Dante’s Divine Comedies, but I guess not. Otherwise you’d know how the Church views Hell (Inferno), Purgatory (Purgatorio), and Heaven (Paradiso). Clarify, no the Divine Comedies are not Dogma.[/quote]

I read, you could have been a lot clearer though…

In complete respect and honesty for your beliefs - hell sounds more like a medieval tactic to scare people into the church, given it was the place where revenues were raised(not saying they did good/bad thing with the money) - and money = power…its just people are either not afraid, lazy, or dont care about religion anymore hence increasing numbers of atheists. Religion now don’t have the money, and have decreasing power/influence.

Dont yell straw man or red herring at me, its a legitimate argument[/quote]

So what you’re saying is it’s not a matter if the Church teaches truth, but because people are becoming indifferent.

Yes, it does sound like a medieval tactic, however the philosophy of hell is much older than that. The reason why it sounds like it is a medieval tactic is because it was expounded on during that time period. I’m not sure how the Church would make money on hell though. How would they make money on that?

Actually religion is very powerful monetary wise, JW (even though they hate Catholics) are one of the richest organizations in NYC. The Catholic Church’s charities is the most powerful collective charity in the world. [/quote]

I think your first comment is correct

2nd paragraph: apologies, I meant medieval in a sense that the ideal is very old, not that is was actaully from specific time period. The church wouldn’t make money on “hell” - they (might have) made money by getting people into the church, by using hell as the motivator to “scare” them. Thats all i was saying.

Yeah america still has a very strong religious sector - Evident in the fact you’ve never had a non religious president…i think? Australia is very multicultural so there’s more atheist ideals - however in saying that an absolute fuddy duddy almost got voted into prime minister due to his Christianity and the oppositions atheism. very ridiculous situation imo.

krsoneeeee · November 4, 2010, 3:44am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic. [/quote]

Because children form ideas later in life and tend to break away from bad ones. If you add in something like hell, it’s more likely that they will continue to believe in the fairy tale. It’s about reinforcing the belief in the mind of a child so that when they become an adult, they keep the “faith”, or tend to come back to it should they stray. The fact that most people remain in the faith of their parents should tell you a lot.

Parent: BELIEVE IN GOD! WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Parent: GOD CREATED HELL! IF YOU DO THAT GOD WILL SEND YOU THERE!

Parent: THE CHURCH IS YOUR KEY TO SALVATION! IT CAN STOP YOU GOING TO HELL!

Church: THE CHURCH NEEDS MONEY! And for only a lifetime of easy payments of 20% of your salary, you too can own beachfront property in heaven! But that’s not all, as a sign of our thanks, we’ll also throw in this state of the art hotplate! Call now![/quote]

Any parent that would tell a child that the Church is the key to salvation does not understand Christianity.
[/quote]

…I’m shocked, I thought Mak was a little less sensitive than this. I also thought he was more educated. Christ saves us, it is done through the Church yes, because he speaks through His church. However, the Church does not inherently have saving powers, it all comes from Jesus.

And second, the Church has never said you can buy yourself out of going to Hell.[/quote]

I think you undervalue parents ability to influence their children - Mak is absolutely correct in what he’s saying (but it wouldn’t be true in every single religious person)

Example: I barrack for a football team that plays 1000km away, because my father use to live there…parents are role models and idols, therefore very influential whether are right or wrong …

JoabSonOfZeruiah · November 4, 2010, 4:47am

[quote]kamui wrote:
about nazism and morality, a little story :