"Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but not in the hell?"

[FlatAssembler]

What makes you think a post in a language people don't understand is going to have more impact than a post in a language they DO understand?

The same reason I am more likely to listen to somebody speaking English than somebody speaking Croatian. If somebody is speaking English, he is likely more intelligent (enough to master a second language) and has probably studied foreign literature on the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

And isn't that authoritarianism? I mean, what gives you the right to decide for other people what is right and what is wrong, and to punish them for doing what you think is wrong?

I didn't write our laws, and no, it's not authoritarianism to suggest that some crimes are committed by people who simply don't know any better or have nothing better.   

And why would a sane person participate in Vukovar Massacre, for example? Because, if you do participate in Vukovar Massacre, there are two things that can happen to you: you can end up killed, or you can survive and forever be remembered as one of the bad guys. If you oppose Vukovar Massacre, you can end up killed by the illegal army, or you can end up in history as one of the good guys. Therefore, the rational thing to do is not to join the illegal army led by Raznatovic that committed Vukovar Massacre.

They didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you and I do now, and that certainly wasn't their expectation.  Not that it matters much..since, as you well know, there are people who would do so again today and whether or not a course of action is rational has no bearing on whether or not people took it.  

Both. I think that if they are not just punishment for misdeeds, it logically follows they do not actually exist. That is by the principle of rationality, one of the basic principles of modern social sciences.

That is not the principle of rationality, and your conclusion doesn't follow.  Bad things exist.  A thing being bad does not suggest imply or demonstrate that it does not exist.

[rado84]

It would be violence if you trap the sheep inside the church and then set it on fire. But that's not what I said. I said "burn the churches", I never said "burn the churches along with the sheep". If I'm gonna burn a church, first I'll make sure every dumb sheep has left the church and then set the church on fire.
You think burning churches is wrong but you forget that this is exactly the same thing christian religiturds did to the pagan religions - tore and/or burned down their temples and built christian churches on top of the remains and also killed the pagans. And now, thanks to the very same thing religiturds did to the pagan religions, the pagan gods are nothing but myths. The point of burning all christian symbols (churches included) is to send the 2000-years old zombie in the myths where Zeus is.

Promoting terrorism is against Forum rules, as is misquoting other members.

I suggest you stop doing both.

Boru

With so many fake atheists here I'm beginning to lose interest in this forum anyway. But I'll stay a little longer in order to see how far this forum's fake atheism will go.

[RozzerusUnrelentus]

@rado84 - You said:

With so many fake atheists here I'm beginning to lose interest in this forum anyway. But I'll stay a little longer in order to see how far this forum's fake atheism will go.

I can't stand deception either. Cards on the table or just be a keyboard coward. That's the internet for you.

But '...so many fake atheists...'?

I'd welcome some names so I know who to avoid.

Cheers.

[HappySkeptic]

With so many fake atheists here I'm beginning to lose interest in this forum anyway. But I'll stay a little longer in order to see how far this forum's fake atheism will go.

I haven't seen a fake atheist here (unless there was a troll that was quickly banned).  Not everyone here is an atheist, though 80% (or so) are.  Even then, some of us are not anti-theist.  I am a Unitarian Universalist and I am an atheist.  As a UU I recognize everyone's right to believe in whatever otherwordly stuff that they want.  If they ask my opinion, though (which they are implicitly doing by posting in this forum), I'll tell them I think it's crap.  Otherwise, it isn't my place unless their beliefs are hurting someone else.

So, yeah, I'm going to push back when you talk about burning every church or religious institution to the ground.  I'm starting to think your facebook ban was justified.

[The Grand Nudger]

Burning them would be a waste of effort wood and warrant. What christians were doing back in the day, as they destroyed temples and whatnot, was removing the financial advantage and instruments that the temple represented. Christianity can be suppressed in exactly the same way, without the torches.

Similar situation with prisons, especially in the us. If the money for incarcerated bodies dries up, it shouldn't surprise us to find fewer people incarcerated and fewer things deemed jailable offenses. Churches have been shuttering up even as they gorge themselves on the public teat because there just isn't enough money left in that game. Too many nones.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What makes you think a post in a language people don't understand is going to have more impact than a post in a language they DO understand?

The same reason I am more likely to listen to somebody speaking English than somebody speaking Croatian. If somebody is speaking English, he is likely more intelligent (enough to master a second language) and has probably studied foreign literature on the subject.

I barely squeaked out a 123 on my last IQ test, I have no talent for languages. I am good at spotting pomposity.

[onlinebiker]

Edit to correct improper quote

---

Prisons exist, you can see them and touch them. Humans manage these prisons. People have returned from prisons and sometimes they tell their story what it's like in prison. People have spent part of their lives in these prisons and walk freely now (like Varg Vikernes who I respect mostly bc he likes to burn churches).
Nobody has yet returned from heaven or hell to say what it's like in there, not to mention you can't see either or touch either of them, therefore they don't exist.

If you respect murdering arsonists - you are one seriously fucked up individual.....


How about Charlie Manson? He also one of your heros?

[FlatAssembler]

it's not authoritarianism to suggest that some crimes are committed by people who simply don't know any better or have nothing better.

Then what is authoritarianism? And why punishing adultery with prison would not be authoritarianism? That is what you are suggesting, right? If you ask me, such a suggestion has far less merit than the suggestion that people should be thrown into jail for eating meat.

They didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you and I do now, and that certainly wasn't their expectation.

I am not sure what you mean? What was their expectation? That they will be remembered as heroes for joining an illegal army that attacked a hospital? Makes zero sense.

A thing being bad does not suggest imply or demonstrate that it does not exist.

Sure. But prisons existing would contradict the Principle of Rationality. Massacres and terrorist attacks happening does not contradict the Principle of Rationality because it does not require any group of people to be systemically biased. In massacres, it does not matter that most soldiers desert, as long as there are some soldiers who do not desert, a massacre will happen. But prisons existing requires politicians to be systemically biased towards believing prisons should exist.

---

The same reason I am more likely to listen to somebody speaking English than somebody speaking Croatian. If somebody is speaking English, he is likely more intelligent (enough to master a second language) and has probably studied foreign literature on the subject.

I barely squeaked out a 123 on my last IQ test, I have no talent for languages. I am good at spotting pomposity.

Well, my IQ is not a lot higher, it is 125.

[The Grand Nudger]

it's not authoritarianism to suggest that some crimes are committed by people who simply don't know any better or have nothing better.

Then what is authoritarianism? And why punishing adultery with prison would not be authoritarianism? That is what you are suggesting, right? If you ask me, such a suggestion has far less merit than the suggestion that people should be thrown into jail for eating meat.

We don't throw people in jail for cheating on their spouses, but, no..simply having such a law would not make a system or ideology authoritarian.  

They didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you and I do now, and that certainly wasn't their expectation.

I am not sure what you mean? What was their expectation? That they will be remembered as heroes for joining an illegal army that attacked a hospital? Makes zero sense.

People can be informed by rational but inaccurate expectations.  Most soldiers, on either side, imagine themselves to be the heroes of the story.  To say that a decision is rational is not to say that it is the good coarse of action or the best coarse of action or that all relevant facts are accurately apprehended by the decision maker.  

A thing being bad does not suggest imply or demonstrate that it does not exist.

Sure. But prisons existing would contradict the Principle of Rationality. Massacres and terrorist attacks happening does not contradict the Principle of Rationality because it does not require any group of people to be systemically biased. In massacres, it does not matter that most soldiers desert, as long as there are some soldiers who do not desert, a massacre will happen. But prisons existing requires politicians to be systemically biased towards believing prisons should exist.

No, prisons existing doesn't contradict the principle of rationality.  If people feel that prisons are an adequate course of action with respect to some objective, then there will be prisons - this is what the principle of rationality states.  This is what we see in the world.  Insomuch as they deem it inadequate or inappropriate, they will lose faith in the institution itself and whatever body maintains it. Also what we see in the world.

Your argument takes the form of a pretty standard non sequitur - an appeal to consequences. If this were true, that would be bad, therefore it's not true.  Perhaps prisons are bad, but to conclude that this means that there are no prisons is irrational - whereas a different conclusion - that we should take control of the prisons and reduce them to rubble - is rational. Similarly, "if these people existed, that would be bad, therefore they don't exist" is irrational. "If these people existed, that would be bad, so we should kill them"...rational.

Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science.

It's rare that a short and simple definition clears up so many misconceptions at once, but can you see how it answers your questions? Let's extend it one further. For some people, a belief in hell would be just as rational as a belief in prisons. There are people in the world who's beliefs about hell match their reasons for belief, and in the case of evangelists (for example) where their actions also match.