My Escatological Vision

[thesummerqueen]

I see that a lot of people really hate the idea of a God who would cast them into eternal hell fire for looking at porn or something akin, and supposedly He loves us so much and all this business. So I thought I would post my vision of the next life.

Much better start than the last thread, by the way, to let us know where exactly you stand and be pleasant about it.

I think hate is the wrong word for some of us. We dislike the idea, because it seems illogical. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments. Hate comes, for example, when my ex-boyfriend shouts invectives at his sister because she’s an atheist, telling her what a whore she is and exactly why according to god’s scriptures…then expects her to still want to come to church (mind you, she’s a bright, vivacious sweet little thing who is 100 times more forgiving and compassionate and charitable than him). Most of us, I’d be willing to stake money on, don’t hate god…especially as we don’t believe god even exists. We hate god’s followers.

One who passes from this life and who is consumed with hate will go to hell, which, you guessed it!, is the presence of God's love.

Gentle suggestion: doing even a brief proofread before posting would help immensely in making sure we all understand your point. I think you meant “absence” instead of “presence”. Writing your posts out in Microsoft Word or a similar program would eliminate half of your problems.

God has foreseen that this person will never under any circumstance whatsoever, short of God destroying the person's very personness, that is changing the person to such a degree that they become another person altogether, love God.

Do you see why we have a problem with this? We are told god created all things, and yet a person was created who hates god…then is ‘punished’ for it? Do you see the disconnection there?

That is kind of hateful... hating men of God. Well I do not hate you, any case! Also, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, at least for the past 300+ years have lived without any kind of luxury, for the most part, many of which take vows to povery and celibacy, like our dear Pope, who does not have an personal items, besides a few keep sakes, like a watch his sister gave him. Further, Religious (monks and nuns) make true vows to poverty and never own anything, and hardly eat anything. Many never eat meat or drink alcohol. And they work, and all of their work goes to others. Many men of God our heroes, even if you think they are delusional, and if you can't see that I would say you are blinded by hate.

1) Stop shouting ‘hate’ or acting as if there’s a conspiracy just because someone doesn’t agree with you. How about asking specifically WHY someone doesn’t share your same viewpoint? Even if it’s your personal opinion that someone is responding purely out of hate, you show no class or respect by continually slinging it around. More than likely there is a rational reason and the problem is communication error.

2) The Pope lives in a palace filled with artworks and literature at his beck and call. He has the best care the church’s money can buy. He sleeps in a bed far more luxurious than most of us can ever dream. His clothes are made from fine materials, he rides in a bulletproof car, and wears gems whose worth most of us can’t even fathom. He is fed by chefs of superior order. The man has absolutely no reason to want…EVER. Or do you not see these things? Just because his name is not on their deeds or titles of ownership does not negate the fact that he is allowed to USE them.

And Jewish slavery is different in every sorts from modern slavery.

Er…how? The only slavery from ancient times that I know of that was different from “modern” slavery belonged to the Greeks and Romans who allowed their slaves to earn their freedom.

And the OT condemns any human sacrifice. Human sacrifice only happens once in the Bible by a Jew and it is never endorsed, in fact the only time a value judgement is made on the matter it is condemned.

Did I misread something when it said god told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

I shall reword it, you think you and your tiny bunch of atheists are the only people who deserve respect on this earth.

I cannot love that which I do not respect and I was quite in love with a Southern Baptist for a good portion of my life. Definitely a theist. I have friends who are theists who I love and respect. Do not dishonor my feelings, or the feelings of many other atheists who love people in all sorts of ways despite their theism.

[Dotard]

All they (Minimalist responses) do is reveal you as a hateful, rude, arrogant, and ignorant person.

Hey now. Having been reading Minimalist Responses® for many a moon now, I must come to his defense and state he is not ignorant!

Arrogant and ignorant are two descriptors, judging by your posts, given they are not 'poe'-tic in nature, that fit you nicely.

[Welsh cake]

This is what I call a classic cop out.

You may now proceed to add idioms to your ever-increasing list of things you don't know but should know. A cop out is avoidance or inadequate performance of a task or duty. I haven't chosen not to do something you insufferable twit.

You have a different interpretation of atheist than I do.

No shit Sherlock.

My definition of atheism is: those who do not believe in the reality of God, and instead believe in materialism only.

1. You don't get to have your very own definition of theism, atheism or anything else for that matter.
2. Materialism is a worldview.
3. Atheism is not a worldview.

There may be a more proper word, like am atheistic materialist or something, but for the sake of this forum I am using the word atheist in such a way. If it bothers you so much I will gladly began using a different term if you can give me a more appropriate one. Thanks.

@Rayaan I will continue to use the term atheist until a better term is presented to me. I understand that not all atheists are materialists, but for the sake of my point I am using a different defintion of atheists, one whic his commonly used.

I implore you to get a fucking clue and a dictionary; you may hazard a guess that sane people don't typically make themselves out to be complete clowns for the sake of their arguments.

ALSO lol " "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." The FACT is that man has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE believed in God.

So you're assuming that because a lot of people believe there's a god or gods, it must be true. That's an appeal to common belief fallacy.

Atheists are a NEW phenomenon, and therefore in my opinion the burden of proof lies upon YOU sir.

Logically, atheism has been around as long as theism, if not, longer, but I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you in this case. It will always fall heaviest on the party making the positive ontological claim e.g. "god exists".

Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Shifting the burden of proof onto your audience gets you nowhere. Shifting the burden of proof onto your audience again and again still gets you nowhere. Put down your Bible for five minutes and read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

[dqualk]

Much better start than the last thread, by the way, to let us know where exactly you stand and be pleasant about it.

I think hate is the wrong word for some of us. We dislike the idea, because it seems illogical. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments. Hate comes, for example, when my ex-boyfriend shouts invectives at his sister because she’s an atheist, telling her what a whore she is and exactly why according to god’s scriptures…then expects her to still want to come to church (mind you, she’s a bright, vivacious sweet little thing who is 100 times more forgiving and compassionate and charitable than him). Most of us, I’d be willing to stake money on, don’t hate god…especially as we don’t believe god even exists. We hate god’s followers.

Thank you, in truth I never intended to come off in such a negative way, however, I can see why I was taken the way I was.

Yeah I was careful to say the "idea of God." Especially when it is a God who is damning people for an eternity of stealing a hotdog or something.

Gentle suggestion: doing even a brief proofread before posting would help immensely in making sure we all understand your point. I think you meant “absence” instead of “presence”. Writing your posts out in Microsoft Word or a similar program would eliminate half of your problems.

Thank you for the kind suggestion lol I sometimes get a harsh suggestion lol anyway, I actually meant what I said. I believe people in hell are still in the presence of God's love. I believe God loves all men, even those in hell. An analogy I like to use is this, first hell is like a prison cell locked from the inside, and not the outside. Another analogy I like to use is God's love is like a fire, those who are in heaven have a proper relationship to the fire, they are at a safe distance where they are warmed on a cold winter's night and they use the light for reading a good book. Those in hell are inside of the fire, burning. However, they can walk out of the fire at any moment, they just hate the light so much that they refuse to go out into it.

Do you see why we have a problem with this? We are told god created all things, and yet a person was created who hates god…then is ‘punished’ for it? Do you see the disconnection there?

Absolutely I can see why you would have a problem with it, its a difficult concept to grasp. I personally can come to grips with it by believeing in the mystery of free will. Free will makes no sense when there is an omnipotent and omnibenevelont God. Therefore I believe that it is suprarational. For example, God is said to be outside of time, yet we are in time, this too makes no sense, I accept it as being suprarationale too. I believe if we were in God's realm we would understand how it all works, but we are not able to grasp those things of God, so instead we give them over to mystery. This is why free will is called a mystery.

1) Stop shouting ‘hate’ or acting as if there’s a conspiracy just because someone doesn’t agree with you. How about asking specifically WHY someone doesn’t share your same viewpoint? Even if it’s your personal opinion that someone is responding purely out of hate, you show no class or respect by continually slinging it around. More than likely there is a rational reason and the problem is communication error.

It probably is just a communication error. However Zen is the one who said she hates men of God. I felt like this was a hateful thing to say so I let her know. I doubt she actually hates men of God, its more like a figure of speech. Quote by Zenbadger:

What we do hate are the men who use the authority of god to justify their lust to control and dominate others.
In short, we hate the hypocritical bastards who call themselves "men of god"

2) The Pope lives in a palace filled with artworks and literature at his beck and call. He has the best care the church’s money can buy. He sleeps in a bed far more luxurious than most of us can ever dream. His clothes are made from fine materials, he rides in a bulletproof car, and wears gems whose worth most of us can’t even fathom. He is fed by chefs of superior order. The man has absolutely no reason to want…EVER. Or do you not see these things? Just because his name is not on their deeds or titles of ownership does not negate the fact that he is allowed to USE them.

The original palace was a donation by Constantine. And St. Peter's Basilica etc. was build by donations, people like beautiful art and so they pay for it willingly. This is the same reason taht we build a beautiful White House etc. The Pope himself did not build this stuff. They were gifts. The Pope doesn't wear gems. His crown used to have gems in it, which was a donation from Napoleon and the French people, however the Pope dontated all of the gems to charity, even though I feel like a beautiful piece of art which belonged to all of the Church was given away just because some people make baseless accusations. The fact is we Catholics want our Pope to have beautiful symbols of office, just like we want beautiful things for ourself. The fact is the Pope could be a millioaire but with all the books he sells, instead he gives ALL of the profits from his books to charity. The Pope drives a bulletproof car because a would-be murderer tried to kill him. The chefs that feed him do so for free, and they are religious, that is they give everythign they make away. It is true that he is loved by a billion faithful who insist that he not go hungry and that he is kept safe with good health care etc. but this is not himself. And the fact is the Pope does not use material things, except for excellent heathcare and ample food. Which he fasts frequently, and he clearly does not gorge himself on food. Its not as if the Pope has millionaire toys or something. He doesn't drive sports cars and owns giant home theater systems with all this junk. He also doesn't own flashy clothes. he wears the cassock personally and he wears the symbols of his office that are handed down from generation to generation and were originally gifts. The Church educates more children than any institution in the world, its has more hospitals, I mean I could go on and on about how charitable the Church is. Once more just call your local Catholic parish and you will see that they have many charities that they freely give to those in need.

Er…how? The only slavery from ancient times that I know of that was different from “modern” slavery belonged to the Greeks and Romans who allowed their slaves to earn their freedom.

Technically in Jewish law no man can be a slave for their entire life and one cannot be born into slavery, and slaves had rights in Jewish law. In Greece and Rome slaves had NO rights, and they were freed at their masters whim, only. They were property 100%. You could rape them, kill them whatever. Jews were not allowed to rape or kill their "indentured servants."

Did I misread something when it said god told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

Well apparently you did, because God commanded Abraham not to slay his son, ultimately. He was testing him. Also, for Christians this was not only a test, but it was also a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man.

I cannot love that which I do not respect and I was quite in love with a Southern Baptist for a good portion of my life. Definitely a theist. I have friends who are theists who I love and respect. Do not dishonor my feelings, or the feelings of many other atheists who love people in all sorts of ways despite their theism.

I apologize if I made it sound like this was directed at you. It most certainyl was not. I find you to be a pleasant person. I was quoting what Dotard said, I think it was Dotard...

I honor you feelings and you seem to have shown me respect and I appreciate it, and I hope I can also show you respect.

---

@Dotard Sure thing man. Once again I said its very well possible that minimalist is intelligent but he hasnt shown it to me yet.

---

You may now proceed to add idioms to your ever-increasing list of things you don't know but should know. A cop out is avoidance or inadequate performance of a task or duty. I haven't chosen not to do something you insufferable twit.

You attempt to stop me from talking about a particular kind of atheism by saying that all atheism is defined by the way you define atheism, this is a way to avoid talking about the issue by making up a false problem, a cop out.

1. You don't get to have your very own definition of theism, atheism or anything else for that matter.
2. Materialism is a worldview.
3. Atheism is not a worldview.

I'll tell you what, I'll began calling it atheistic materialism. Just for you.

I implore you to get a fucking clue and a dictionary; you may hazard a guess that sane people don't typically make themselves out to be complete clowns for the sake of their arguments.

The fact is many people use atheist as a short for athesitic materialism, as one has not need to use the term atheist which only means a lack of God. People use the term Theism to mean various things as well. If you've read a book in your life you would know that.

So you're assuming that because a lot of people believe there's a god or gods, it must be true. That's an appeal to common belief fallacy.

You probably have not read a book, becasue you cannot read. As I have never once used the belief of masses as conclusive evidence to prove something. I do use it as a way to strengthen my arguement.

Logically, atheism has been around as long as theism, if not, longer, but I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you in this case. It will always fall heaviest on the party making the positive ontological claim e.g. "god exists".

lol prove it. However about those who make the positive claim that God does not exist? People have always in history believed in God this is a simple fact, as far as history can give us facts. Of course you could just prove to believe, against the evidence, that the first men who had the time to think and record their thoughts did not believe in God, but that would be contrary to the evidence we have.

You are shifting the burden of proof on to theists, so I'll say shifting the burden of proof gets us nowhere.

[Ace Otana]

I'll tell you what, I'll began calling it atheistic materialism. Just for you.

Another theist who likes to redefine words. Oh boy.

Ok, first off, atheists can have spiritual beliefs. Which is why calling every atheist a materialist would be wrong since it isn't true. I happen to be a materialist but I just wanted to make clear that not all atheists are materialists. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in a god. It couldn't be more simple. If you can't understand that then you're either an idiot or you're in denial. Both Wiki and the good old English dictionary agree with me.

You probably have not read a book, becasue you cannot read. As I have never once used the belief of masses as conclusive evidence to prove something. I do use it as a way to strengthen my arguement

It doesn't strengthen you're argument. Since it's a lousy point to make. Alot of people believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, were they right about that? Fuck no! So it doesn't matter how many believe in a god, they can still all be wrong as hell. A lie is a lie, no matter how many believe it.

People have always in history believed in God this is a simple fact

And this proves what? Doesn't matter how many or how long we have held a belief, if it's wrong it's wrong. End of!

Of course you could just prove to believe, against the evidence, that the first men who had the time to think and record their thoughts did not believe in God, but that would be contrary to the evidence we have.

Did you know everyone is born atheist? No baby ever comes out of their mother with a belief in god. And since all you need in order to be an atheist is to simply lack belief in a god, every child starts off as an atheist. Some remain atheist like myself. So I'm willing to bet that atheism has been around much longer than religion.

You are shifting the burden of proof on to theists,

Not really. The burden of proof is on those it's suppost to be on. You claim it, you prove it.
I as an agnostic atheist am not claiming anything. I'm not claiming that there isn't a god, I just lack belief in such a thing, and as a materialist I also lack any belief in the supernatural. I don't believe in the supernatural at all. To me, there is only the material, and so no such thing as gods, ghosts, afterlife, spirits, demons, ect ect.

Any questions?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Minimalist it is clear in my experience that all you do is troll on people.

I don't think he gets you Min,nor grasped the meaning of the word 'pithy' EG:

The message is one of submission to authority. Authority has always approved of such dictums and the sheep don't know any better.

My perception is that you and I share one sterling quality; we both decline to suffer fools. What's-his-name qualifies,it's really that simple.

Min,please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood your position.

---

I have friends who are theists who I love and respect. Do not dishonor my feelings, or the feelings of many other atheists who love people in all sorts of ways despite their theism.

Me too,well,three.

My 84 year old mother who is a wavering Catholic, appalled by Ratty and that slimy cardinal George Pell.

My best (hard atheist) mate's 19 year old daughter is in her second year of Law/Arts. She has recently come down with a nasty case of evangelical Christianity, but is still the same bright,sweet girl. We're hoping this is just a phase.

The 20 year old son of a friend was recently baptised in the Church of England. His (soft atheist) mother is unconcerned.She reports there has been no noticeable change in his behaviour.He continues bonking his way through the female student body of his university.

I have mainly mild contempt for most believers who insist on inflicting themselves on atheist forums. Willful ignorance and unfounded personal certitude irritates me.I also become a little peeved at the arrogance which assumes we have not heard their tired, intellectually dishonest arguments many,many, many times.

Hate them? Of course not; they flatter themselves with a delusion of adequacy. One needs to care about something in order to hate it. In real life,I'm pretty much indifferent to such people and their personal superstitions. To be blunt, I really, truly ,could not care less if they should spontaneously combust.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist it is clear in my experience that all you do is troll on people.

You are a bit dense, boy, so it is possible that you have not gotten the hint yet. I said it plainly at the time but I will repeat it for you now and hopefully you will get it loud and clear.

When you defended your pedophile-loving church's handling of these assorted scandals I told you that I wrote you off. That means, and let this be crystal clear, that I think you are a fucking despicable low-life who would sacrifice the well-being of children to maintain your own childlike belief in catholicism... a doctrine of such unsurpassed stupidity that even protestants rebelled against it.

I am dumping on you every chance I get because you are a fucking loser.

Go to (your) hell.

[thesummerqueen]

By the way, for anyone who cares there was an excellent podcast done last March for "Monster Talk" on the subject of ghosts and the survival of consciousness after death. The hosts had Dr. Steven Novella (of Skeptic's Guide) as their guest and the interview was fascinating. The issue of awareness/personality changes after something happens to the brain was part of the discussion. It's the one called "Getting Into the Spirit of Things". There were a few things said on this thread that made me think back to several things Dr. Novella explained.

I recommend the podcast as a whole anyway. It started partially as a skeptical response to the show on the (pseudo)History Channel (aka, the Hitler Network) called Monster Quest, and even though it discusses all the things you'd find in a cryptozoology book I'm never disappointed with the interviews they conduct, which always give better insight into evolution and science in general.

[KichigaiNeko]

poor dqualk....run away....NOW!


Go Min!!

[Dotard]

....hopefully you will get it loud and clear.

When you defended your pedophile-loving church's handling of these assorted scandals I told you that I wrote you off. That means, and let this be crystal clear, that I think you are a fucking despicable low-life who would sacrifice the well-being of children to maintain your own childlike belief in catholicism... a doctrine of such unsurpassed stupidity that even protestants rebelled against it.

...you're a fucking loser.
Go to (your) hell.

Hmmm... Still seems a bit... 'fuzzy'. Could you elaborate please?