What Heaven is Like

[Mister Agenda]

if 21% of atheists are supposed to believe in gods according to this survey. A group who by definition do not believe in god. Then the other results look rather suspect.

Lol that post should go down in history as one of the most stupid, crazy and outright bullshit posts ever on this forum.

Hey, Aiza is just the messenger, taking those findings as saying something about atheists instead of saying something about the survey is where she goes wrong.

There are some possible confounding factors in the survey: given the number of atheists who meditate, as indicated on the survey, I suspect that some of people who identified as atheists are Buddhists who consider themselves atheists despite believing in the existence of minor gods. I suppose between the bare-bones Buddhist who really rejects the supernatural aspects of Buddhism and the slightly-more supernaturalist Buddhist there's a grey area that may be causing confusion.

Also, given some of the whoppers I've heard about atheists from evangelicals, it seems there are a lot of people who think atheists are people who do drugs, fornicate, or worship the devil while not going to church, so if they're doing that they may think that makes them atheists. Twice I've had people who find out I'm an atheist ask me if that means I worship the devil.

So I think there are people who consider themselves atheists who aren't clear on the concept. The best way to determine if someone is an atheist on a survey is to ask if the person believes God really exists and if they answer 'no', check them off as an atheist.

[Epimethean]

Aiza has brought the Catholic Comedy Show straight into our living rooms.

[Welsh cake]

I am not always worshipping him perfectly.

So god allowed his son to be crucified by men, just so you get to worship him even more?

In Heaven it is simple and constant adoration of God, and seeing him face-to-face, the beatific vision. No "wings" or "harp".

You haven't acknowledged your god's apparent omnipresence (please tell me if that's not what you believe as opposed to being cryptic) and how the hell does god have a face?

maybe hatred wasn't the best choice of word (?).

Agreed.

2. Sorry to hear about that.

That's in the past. Don't worry I'll have plenty more time to suffer in your theological world view won't I? Regardless of whether you're sorry or not.

3. Are you sure? The thesaurus would beg to differ: http://thesaurus.com/browse/love

Technically, I misquoted you. You said "goodness" not love, so I apologise there.

4. Fallacy of equivocation. Pretty funny considering you just tried to claim I had no intellectual honesty.

I've made no fallacious statement. You invoked "hearts" not in the figurative sense but as in the 'core/spirit thingy' of our being, and I reject that as hogwash. Hearts pump blood. They do no thinking or anything else that the brain is responsible for.

Stating a biological fact is not a fallacy. >.<

Sounds more like a pretty common turn of phrase back then which you cherry picked out of many more examples of disobedient people who were not killed (including many of our Apostles).

And yet you don't care if your god decided to slay that man for simply refusing to do as he was told.

Interesting. I was alarmed when I read that god could potentially murder the nameless prophet, not just in a violent manner, but so indiscriminately, and even allow his corpse's remains to rot as a warning to others who witnessed it not to provoke him. The almighty bastard couldn't even give that poor man a decent burial.

I guess you don't care what kind of monster god is just so long as you can get to worship and praise his undeserving arse.

[Mister Agenda]

I've made no fallacious statement. You invoked "hearts" not in the figurative sense but as in the 'core/spirit thingy' of our being, and I reject that as hogwash. Hearts pump blood. They do no thinking or anything else that the brain is responsible for.

Stating a biological fact is not a fallacy. >.<

It may be a little over-literal though. I'm starting to find it a little irritating when I see someone say something like 'I feel in my heart that God is real' and get a reply like 'Your heart doesn't feel emotions, it just pumps blood, dumbass'. We know what they meant and it may have been funny once to call them on their word choice instead of what they were trying to say, but it's getting old. People should be able to say things like 'heartfelt', 'affair of the heart', 'heartbroken' and so on without getting derailed by biological literalness.

[The Grand Nudger]

It probably wouldn't bother people as much if it weren't preceded and followed by a long list of ridiculous shit. I know that I'll often overlook some minor typo, turn of phrase, etc, if I know what the person meant, until it becomes the straw that broke the camels back

[Godscreated]

Mister Agenda is correct. The reason this is kept up, they have no logical maturity, to many teens hear who want to show off instead of learning from their peers, Oh, but wait this is what they learn from their peers. Those who could teach others how to be responsible adults neglect to do so and keep on with their own childish ways. Grow-up.

By the way can anyone explain to me why it is that one feels despair and pain in their chest when something tragic comes into one's life, or why joy and happiness is felt in one's chest when they falls in love, or when other wonderful things happen to one in life? This is a serious question.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I've made no fallacious statement. You invoked "hearts" not in the figurative sense but as in the 'core/spirit thingy' of our being, and I reject that as hogwash. Hearts pump blood. They do no thinking or anything else that the brain is responsible for.

Stating a biological fact is not a fallacy. >.<

It may be a little over-literal though. I'm starting to find it a little irritating when I see someone say something like 'I feel in my heart that God is real' and get a reply like 'Your heart doesn't feel emotions, it just pumps blood, dumbass'. We know what they meant and it may have been funny once to call them on their word choice instead of what they were trying to say, but it's getting old.

It's a Reductio ad Absurdum refutation of a blatantly fallacious appeal to emotion. I don't have any problem with it at all.

---

I love the way GC tries to cast all the adults here, most proably quite a bit older than him, as if we were all high schoolers or teen-agers.

I CALL BULLSHIT. How old are YOU, CG? Dare you even say?

[Epimethean]

"By the way can anyone explain to me why it is that one feels despair and pain in their chest when something tragic comes into one's life, or why joy and happiness is felt in one's chest when they falls in love, or when other wonderful things happen to one in life? This is a serious question."

Lemme guess: Because godmadeit, goddidit, or godwhathaveyou?

LOL. Your rationale is worse than a five year-old's, and you cite a lack of logical maturity? Your silly cult is BASED on ignorance and mental simplicity.

[Aiza]

lol you people. Too funny.

Pew Research Center is a very large non-partisan, non-religiously affiliated think tank. Remember that poll that said "atheists know more about religion than Christians?" that came from the Pew Research Center:
http://www.pewforum.org/

I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!" Yep, thats sure how science works alright. Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God.

---

It's one of many, as I already pointed out. And all your rambling doesn't change change the fact that it is bleeding out its membership.

Yes it does, because it isn't "bleeding out its membership", its losing a bunch of cultural Catholics whereas traditional Catholicism is undergoing a pretty strong growth and Catholicism itself is growing worldwide.

And eh, yeah there is a priest shortage sure? They can get new clergy, just they need more. That doesn't mean its in its "death throes" or whatever you are on about.

And higher worldwide estimates of its membership = attempts to exert influence by appeal to the Herd -- which is exactly what you are trying to do here.

Hmm? I never heard anyone "appeal to the herd" at all. You're obviously not a part of the Church.

It says "God". It doesn't say "pantheon of lesser beings that resemble gods but are pitied for their indulgent natures, which how the Buddha portrayed extant beliefs of gods as he was shuffling them out the door.

Yep, it just says "God" and not "creator god" or "patheon of lesser beings" or whatever else you are on about.

Also, re: Dhammapada:
>The Dhammapada is a versified Buddhist scripture traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. It is one of the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.[2]

---

Um, that's exactly what I'm referring to. If true, permanent death isn't an option, clearly God doesn't have a problem with restricting our choices.

That's like saying that God limits our choices because we can't teleport. When we talk about freedom of choice, we mean freedom of to follow our own consciences or go against them.

What you actually said is that your view represents the view of the majority of Christians here. GC is here, too.

If I said that I didn't mean on this forum. I could 2 Protestants, 1 Swedenborgian, and me.

If you told me the Karfnugen sect isn't composed of Christians because they deny the divinity of Jesus, reject all his miracles, and think he gave spectacularly bad advice; I'd agree they don't fit the definition of Christian.

Would you? I just tend to think of Christian as a pretty watered-down label at this point, and going down that path results in "no true scotsman" accusations pretty quickly so eh.

---

So god allowed his son to be crucified by men, just so you get to worship him even more?

So I can know him more perfectly than any creature and partake of the divine essence, to be more fully unified to God through the teachings of Christ even unto his death. This knowledge of God and adoration of him is what brings his creatures (his devout creatures) no greater happiness. But yes, yes so I can worship and adore him all of the more.

"God became man so that man might become God."--St. Athanasius

You haven't acknowledged your god's apparent omnipresence (please tell me if that's not what you believe as opposed to being cryptic) and how the hell does god have a face?

I do acknowledged God's omnipresence, but that doesn't mean I see him as he is. We have an imperfect knowledge of God in this world, and we worship him imperfectly. And yes, God does have a face:



http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.co...0Face.html

I've made no fallacious statement. You invoked "hearts" not in the figurative sense but as in the 'core/spirit thingy' of our being, and I reject that as hogwash. Hearts pump blood. They do no thinking or anything else that the brain is responsible for.

The word "heart" has multiple meanings. It is very much a fallacy (fallacy of equivocation) to pretend like they all go back to the "organ" definition when its obvious from context what was being referred to.

And yet you don't care if your god decided to slay that man for simply refusing to do as he was told.

Even if you took that passage 100% literally (and I don't see why I would because it sounds very much like a common turn of phrase), we have God allowing him to be eaten by a lion. The way God allows anyone to die within Christianity (save possibly Enoch, Elijah and the Blessed Virgin Mary), the same way he also allowed himself to die.

Either way it seems you aren't trying to argue that God kills everyone who doesn't do as he says.

[Welsh cake]

I'm starting to find it a little irritating when I see someone say something like 'I feel in my heart that God is real' and get a reply like 'Your heart doesn't feel emotions, it just pumps blood, dumbass'. We know what they meant and it may have been funny once to call them on their word choice instead of what they were trying to say, but it's getting old.

You're not paying attention. I wasn't fucking joking.

I was being deadly serious.

People should be able to say things like 'heartfelt', 'affair of the heart', 'heartbroken' and so on without getting derailed by biological literalness.

Oh don't be so puerile please.

This is not an objection to someone talking figuratively.

When they say "heart" they are literally making a claim about their soul's "inner core" (whatever the fuck that means), and by extension the heart of OUR souls, to that I say "complete and utter nonsense" - the only heart we have is the biological organ with the same namesake, not some "spiritual" brain fart.

Mister Agenda is correct.

And you can fucking shut up as well.

...


Geez, don't you guys feel like you're surrounded by idiots some days?