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.
No. She is saying if you really think it is a fairy tale and hell does not even exist, why do you consider it an attack to say you are going there???
There's an entire spectrum of extremes as to this notion of hell.
You are right. For the most part it's all just absurd and laughable. Of course you shouldn't take it seriously.
I think there are a whole group/genre of Christians these days that don't really take the idea of hell that seriously either. I think you might be on the cusp of that somewhere as well.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have fundamentalist extremists who believe in the OT version of hell, such as the Westboro Baptist church who believe that practically everyone except themselves are going to 'the hottest part of hell' (not sure how they are grading the heat) and while they 'rejoice in all god judgements' they also have this trump card to play - in that they also believe that their protests and picketing are a doing a 'courteous and loving thing' in warning people they are going to hell. That's some screwy psychology right there.
At those kind of extremes I have to laugh as well.
In the middle ground there are the people who do believe in kind of literal hell but claim you will be saved from it if only you will give it all up to Jesus. I suppose in their eyes they are also wishing you well in an odd kind of way.
Then there are a teeny tiny handful of people - there was a guy on here a while back. I can't remember his name - he doesn't seem to post now, who did seem to take great delight in the idea of atheists going to hell. I mean okay, even though we don't believe in such a thing, it's still a pretty nasty idea for some one to wish for you burn for eternity. LOL.
Well, take the example I gave above. Were they totally wrong and misguided for a few hundred years before, or are they totally wrong and misguided now? Either way it's no badge of excellence.
The short answer is that even though it's the institution of the same name, it's not the same people.
Adze: An ancient and versatile cutting tool similar to an axe but with the cutting edge perpendicular to the handle rather than parallel.
As Mystic has an ancient air about him, seems rather intelligent and DOES tend to cut to the chase at 90 degree angles, I would submit that he is a....
I think it would be an idea for everyone to consider what they feel is an actual attack on them or their worldview personally.
Do we consider every single thing that's said that we don't agree with or don't believe in as an attack or do we consider it just a different point of view and a point for discussion?
What really upsets you?
There's not actually much that is discussed on these forums within the realms of religion/ atheism / theism subject matter itself that I feel is an attack on anyone.
The attacks I feel come from the sideways name calling, implications that people are lying and misrepresenting what people say, none of which bears any relationship to the actual subject matter being discussed.
People need to stop doing that and find a way to discuss things without resorting to all of that.
There are things worth getting upset about in religion - or at least things some religions use as an excuse to control people such as suppression of women, genital mutilation, persecution of homosexuality etc. We are not even going near that stuff here.
What we are talking about here I feel is what constitutes a personal attack.
If we are going to take every single thing anyone says as a personal affront, I honestly don't know why people subject themselves to it.
What is comes down to as I said earlier in the thread, is people don't know how to talk to one another.
Discuss the substance and leave the ad hominem and misrepresentation behind.
When I was a young JW criticism felt like an attack because being a JW was a core part of my identity. Also, I was told to expect to be attacked because I had the truth. I think it's more likely for it to be that way for a believer than a non-believer.
Adze: An ancient and versatile cutting tool similar to an axe but with the cutting edge perpendicular to the handle rather than parallel.
As Mystic has an ancient air about him, seems rather intelligent and DOES tend to cut to the chase at 90 degree angles, I would submit that he is a....
Smart Adze...
Did you pay homage to the other meaning of that word by putting it in green? Do we think Mystic is an Adze?
how about this for starters on the "some atheists believe this"
attack or critique?
"I do think the human race would do far better without religion." [annihilation much?]
"science is what enables us to understand the universe and supernatural beliefs are basically nonsense. So yes I think religion should end. Why should people continue to believe in things that have no proof or evidence? Religion has probably outlived whatever usefulness it once had." [another for end religion altogether. intolerance for those with different views seems to be a theme.]
"human learning would be accelerated by the abandonment of religion, because religions have the overtone of suppressing curiosity, and therefore pursuit of knowledge." [guess they're unaware of the brilliant scientists and researchers, doctors and engineers, inventors and physicists who are religious. ]
shall we continue? there's a whole bunch of atheist threads, we've barely scratched the surface, happy to provide more.
The first quote is almost certainly talking about the abandonment or religion, not the annihilation of fellow humans, annihilation theme sounds more like the vindictive mindset of christianity.
The second quote , I believe was me. You don't have to work in R&D labs of large corporations with thousands of scientists to be aware that the population abroad, and likewise in the scientific community, is religiously diverse. But religion DOES suppress science when it tells there is no need to look for answers, because we already know them. Image how much less we would know about medicine if prayer for the sick, and raising the dead were universally accepted medical treatments. Imagine how much less we would know about the cosmos if we universally thought the the sun stood still. How little about the origin and development of life on the plant, if we universally accepted one of the religious origin stories. This is HARDLY an attack, instead I classify the resistance to search for alternate answers as harmful to human progress. Just imagine how many more diseases would have already been handled if religion didn't routinely object. I know and am close friends with many believers, of varying IQs, demographically representative of the general populate. I can't believe you would even argue that religion doesn't have a long history of suppressing natural solutions to natural problems, trying to squash the curiosity of those that don't accept supernatural solutions is universally true and correct.
It's almost humorous that it becomes a no-win situation for them in some instances. If they do modify a long-held position, they're easily criticized for having been so wrong for so long. If they don't modify some long-held positions, they may be characterized as insensitive or deeply misguided. I am thinking, for example: "The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church's support of slavery and segregation". Were they horribly wrong in their interpretation of Christ's law before, or now? And how much intense suffering and death cause before they saw the light...tens of thousands (if not millions) of lives ruined?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Now that's a good point, although the question I am asking is should that religious institution have continued?
I think maybe the point Tzaph was trying to make is - should we criticize people for changing their position for the better?
Okay someone had a position in the past that is considered unethical now.
Which bit should we focus on?
The past or the present?
I have to say I agree with Tzaph in this case.
I think these days there's too much judging the people of today by yesterdays standards.
We should applaud people for having the willingness to reflect and change for the better.
The Catholic church for example, while it has a LONG way to go, has made several positive changes in recent years that are worth being thankful for. Their view on atheism for example.
I think maybe the point Tzaph was trying to make is - should we criticize people for changing their position for the better?
Okay someone had a position in the past that is considered unethical now.
Which bit should we focus on?
The past or the present?
I have to say I agree with Tzaph in this case.
I think these days there's too much judging the people of today by yesterdays standards.
We should applaud people for having the willingness to reflect and change for the better.
The Catholic church for example, while it has a LONG way to go, has made several positive changes in recent years that are worth being thankful for. Their view on atheism for example.
I think part of the question here, though, should be how voluntarily the change is. Do they readily accept the error of their past ways due to self-examination, or are they dragged to the new realization kicking and screaming?
And I am not saying these people should abandon christianity. I am suggesting that perhaps that particular institution should be abandoned and, essentially, start from scratch.
I think part of the question here, though, should be how voluntarily the change is. Do they readily accept the error of their past ways due to self-examination, or are they dragged to the new realization kicking and screaming?
And I am not saying these people should abandon christianity. I am suggesting that perhaps that particular institution should be abandoned and, essentially, start from scratch.
In reality though, that's unlikely to happen.
Sometimes change comes about fast.
Religiosity in Ireland for example: We have seen several big and fast changes there. I lived through the years long IRA bombing era in the UK that seemed like it would never end. Then suddenly everyone came to their senses and it was over. It was almost inexplicable.
Then between 2011 and 2016 there was a 73% increase in people identifying as no religion.
But this is unusual. Change is usually a lot slower to happen.
I think it is worthwhile celebrating the baby steps as well.
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.
