Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
which world would you choose to live in, you can only pick one, and if you violate the law of the land you are vaporized on the spot. Those unable to choose either world are also vaporized on the spot. You have 60 seconds to decide, and are not able to consult with your friends, loved ones, mentor, or religious leaders.
World A - you are free to feel and express anger, hate, greed, war, dishonesty, deception, oppression, violence, torture, superiority, arrogance, and degradation of any kind. These are in fact the "law of the land" and reign supreme. there is no god in this world, humans make and enforce the laws, there are no religious texts in this world, just various manifestos written by leaders promoting a personal or political agenda.
World B - these are forbidden: anger, hate, war, greed, deception, dishonesty, violence, oppression.
the "law of the land" is peace, kindness, contentment, respect, dignity, cooperation, and humbleness. there is a god in this world, but you won't know "which god" until you get there.
Just what is the point of WORLD B? Is it meant to highlight that "god" has no identity? Or that we might not choose to follow the rules if we do not know who god is?
Obviously, WORLD A is the here and now...
Cannot wait for the evangelicals to weigh in...
Last edited by zthatzmanz28; 05-26-2015 at 08:32 AM..
which world would you choose to live in, you can only pick one, and if you violate the law of the land you are vaporized on the spot. Those unable to choose either world are also vaporized on the spot. You have 60 seconds to decide, and are not able to consult with your friends, loved ones, mentor, or religious leaders.
World A - you are free to feel and express anger, hate, greed, war, dishonesty, deception, oppression, violence, torture, superiority, arrogance, and degradation of any kind. These are in fact the "law of the land" and reign supreme. there is no god in this world, humans make and enforce the laws, there are no religious texts in this world, just various manifestos written by leaders promoting a personal or political agenda.
World B - these are forbidden: anger, hate, war, greed, deception, dishonesty, violence, oppression.
the "law of the land" is peace, kindness, contentment, respect, dignity, cooperation, and humbleness. there is a god in this world, but you won't know "which god" until you get there.
Uh, I'll pick World A. It might be a rougher world, but at least we would be free. Just because we're allowed to express negative emotions doesn't mean everyone will, and just as we do now, humanity will continue to enforce laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. etc. because civilization cannot exist without those laws.
Since there is no god that can use magical powers to force humanity to do anything or threaten us with eternal damnation if we do not obey, we humans will be free to change the world as we see fit. And while the "supreme law of the land" can punish people for displaying certain emotions, trying to punish people for NOT displaying certain emotions is unenforceable ... and I very much doubt that the vast majority of human beings would tolerate laws that actually REQUIRE you to be angry, greedy, warlike, dishonest, deceitful, oppressive, violent, torturous, superior, arrogant, and degrading.
World B, on the other hand, would be a euphoric hell - like that Twilight Zone episode involving the bratty kid with superpowers that required everyone to be happy all the time ... or else. Plus, there's a God of some kind which means humanity wouldn't even have control of itself. Instead, this God would be the final arbiter and judge, leaving the people with no choices and no freedom to change.
Everything would be so sickly, saccharine sweet that it would almost be puke-inducing. There would no longer be any suspense, thrill, excitement, or challenges in life - not even on television. The only thing to watch would be re-runs of Little House on the Prairie (with all scenes featuring Nellie Olson censored out). Humanity would become fat and complacent, brainless and flighty and perhaps even child-like. Perhaps we would end up very much like the Eloi from H.G. Wells' The Time Machine.
We would have to march around our lives, unable to express anger or irritation at anything. Instead of, "Dammit, beepity bleep that bleepin HURT, stubbing my toe on that table leg!" it would be, "Ouch, I just stubbed my toe. What a wonderful sensation that was, feeling that pain. I am so thankful to have been given the opportunity to hurt. I hope you too, my wife and love, my sun and my stars, will soon get to experience stubbing your toe."
The OP seems to specialize in contrived false-choice thought experiments.
I'm with Shirina on this, A is similar to what we already have, B is what some fantasize that we have.
Societies built on the worst dysfunctional tendencies of human nature don't endure, so even if someone took over the world and mandated debauchery and depravity it would only be a matter of (very little) time before people with a brain would break off from that and let the nutjobs finish themselves off. It's telling that no dictator has ever done that (save maybe for himself and his own cronies). You can't even govern on this planet without holding out at least a false hope to people of something noble and virtuous. No evil dictator is stupid enough to mandate evil, it's way too obvious and would prevent him from getting into power, because what the people are clamoring for is not 24/7 sex orgies, it's adequate food, water, and personal opportunity, personal liberty, safety, and stability.
The way the two scenarios are proposed makes it sound like the OP thinks these are the only two possibilities, either god and his alleged moral law or society going straight down the tubes. It also feeds the conceit of the religious that they are the "salt of the earth" and somehow staving off some sort of extreme dystopia. Also I think the OP misconstrues what atheists want or what they are like. The OP assumes atheists are rebellious, willful, self-absorbed misanthropes.
The situation that actually exists is that we are flawed humans imperfectly struggling with some evolutionary adaptations that no longer serve us well in the better world we have built for ourselves, and we are improving our lot incrementally, with occasional and sometimes spectacular setbacks and mistakes. I leave it as an exercise for the reader what the cause of many of those mistakes and setbacks has been, historically.
Gee, another dichotomy without enough context to make an informed choice, which also mixes emotions with actions rather than properly segregating them. So if I have to choose, based solely on whats written & not what I might presume to be true....World A.
World A is basically where we live now. We have the freedom (to the extent we accept it) to focus on the improvement of our lives collectively and make the world what we want it to be. Feelings/emotions of anger, greed, hate, etc. are not in themselves bad things. It is in how we act (or not act) upon them which leads to the oppression, violence, etc. And wtf arrogance doing in that list? Weird...
World B is essentially a world of suppression, and quite honestly could not (rationally) exist. You'll still have the feelings/emotions which trigger anger, greed, hate, etc...yet cannot acknowledge that for fear of punishment. So by definition you would have dishonesty or perhaps a population which can only exterminate itself if it wishes to remain honest & true to its values...albeit in a peaceable way I suppose. Yep...mass suicide by making poorly thought out rules which everybody will violate by their natural disposition. Great world.
which world would you choose to live in, you can only pick one, and if you violate the law of the land you are vaporized on the spot. Those unable to choose either world are also vaporized on the spot. You have 60 seconds to decide, and are not able to consult with your friends, loved ones, mentor, or religious leaders.
World A - you are free to feel and express anger, hate, greed, war, dishonesty, deception, oppression, violence, torture, superiority, arrogance, and degradation of any kind. These are in fact the "law of the land" and reign supreme. there is no god in this world, humans make and enforce the laws, there are no religious texts in this world, just various manifestos written by leaders promoting a personal or political agenda.
World B - these are forbidden: anger, hate, war, greed, deception, dishonesty, violence, oppression.
the "law of the land" is peace, kindness, contentment, respect, dignity, cooperation, and humbleness. there is a god in this world, but you won't know "which god" until you get there.
world A sounds like it would be overrun with evil if a person would be vaporized on the spot if they tried to go against that evil. I don't want to live in that kind of world.
world B sounds wonderful, but I need to know if there are things that happen there that might cause someone to naturally get angry. like is there death or illness? I can not imagine not getting sad and upset over that, and if one does, they get vaporized? do people get sick? do people die? if not, then I would be in heaven in world b. actually, I hope that is where we go after we leave this earth.
world A sounds like it would be overrun with evil if a person would be vaporized on the spot if they tried to go against that evil. I don't want to live in that kind of world.
world B sounds wonderful, but I need to know if there are things that happen there that might cause someone to naturally get angry. like is there death or illness? I can not imagine not getting sad and upset over that, and if one does, they get vaporized? do people get sick? do people die? if not, then I would be in heaven in world b. .
which world would you choose to live in, you can only pick one, and if you violate the law of the land you are vaporized on the spot. Those unable to choose either world are also vaporized on the spot. You have 60 seconds to decide, and are not able to consult with your friends, loved ones, mentor, or religious leaders.
World A - you are free to feel and express anger, hate, greed, war, dishonesty, deception, oppression, violence, torture, superiority, arrogance, and degradation of any kind. These are in fact the "law of the land" and reign supreme. there is no god in this world, humans make and enforce the laws, there are no religious texts in this world, just various manifestos written by leaders promoting a personal or political agenda.
World B - these are forbidden: anger, hate, war, greed, deception, dishonesty, violence, oppression.
the "law of the land" is peace, kindness, contentment, respect, dignity, cooperation, and humbleness. there is a god in this world, but you won't know "which god" until you get there.
World A.
World B is not realistically possible. How are those negative things forbidden? Do they simply not exist or is something actually stopping it form happening. If it's the latter, it is a world of oppression and this god is a hypocrite allowing himself to oppress but thinking it wrong for others. And good of world B is possible in world A, so world A is ultimately the better world as it allows for opportunity and truth, since world B says there's a god but refuses to make it possible to know what that means until you've already died (I assume that's what you mean by 'get there').
world B sounds wonderful, but I need to know if there are things that happen there that might cause someone to naturally get angry. like is there death or illness? I can not imagine not getting sad and upset over that, and if one does, they get vaporized? do people get sick? do people die? if not, then I would be in heaven in world b. actually, I hope that is where we go after we leave this earth.
good questions!
hurt, sadness, grief, yes those are present and not cause to be vaporized
yes people die, so we lose our loved ones to natural causes
but not due to sickness, because discord is the cause of illness, and where there is harmony there is no illness
sadness and loss and grief, are very different from hate and anger and war
World B is not realistically possible. How are those negative things forbidden? Do they simply not exist or is something actually stopping it form happening. If it's the latter, it is a world of oppression and this god is a hypocrite allowing himself to oppress but thinking it wrong for others. And good of world B is possible in world A, so world A is ultimately the better world as it allows for opportunity and truth, since world B says there's a god but refuses to make it possible to know what that means until you've already died (I assume that's what you mean by 'get there').
world A seems to be a world of oppression since you are not allowed to have anything positive. at least that is how I understood it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
