Mrebo

The idea that God uses a secret algorithm that weighs sins in a “reasonable” way seems way more arbitrary and self-serving.

TV’s Frink said:

Should the ticket to heaven really be “worship me?”

Such a needy being for being a perfect being.

I think it’s way less about “worship,” as that word is commonly understood, than “recognize reality and act accordingly because you want to.”

If there’s a perfect and benevolent being who, having granted us free will, provides a way for us to overcome our inherent sinfulness (rather than condemning us outright or negating that free will), it makes zero sense to say, “God, you’re so needy.”

I think one would naturally “worship” the perfect and benevolent being who created them. I think it’s less a requirement than a WTH is wrong with a person who doesn’t appreciate that perfect being who created existence.

I do not understand the rituals and rote recitations and banal songs that occupy much time in religious services. I wonder if even God thinks it’s nice but you people are focusing energy in the wrong areas.

oojason said:

I like everything about this.

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

Progressive is in many ways just the new label for what used to be called liberal before, say, the Clinton administration. The liberal label over time evolved (at least in some circles) to apply only to the more suburban white well-to-do part of the Democratic base – not particularly union-friendly, not particularly concerned about the social safety net, interested in looking environmentally-conscious without having to change their lifestyle, and so sad about racial injustice that they hope very fervently that somebody else will finally do something about it before they have to sit through another depressing movie about it.

Progressive identity arose the way lots of identities do – simply as a means of saying “I’m not one of them!”

Yeah, I think of progressivism in a Lyndon Johnson “Great Society” way. We haven’t had a truly liberal president since Carter.

IMO we haven’t had a truly liberal President since Nixon, but different strokes.

You must be really old! And everyone knows Nixon was terrible!

TV’s Frink said:

Sounds great. And convenient. And super unlikely.

I think it’s way more convenient to get into heaven for being a “good person.” And to define “good person,” by the morality that prevails in our particular society. Having a clear and objective way for people to be saved makes more sense, and doesn’t feel so convenient. Having to live a life striving to avoid and repent for even small sins sounds like a major hassle. Would you rather that those dealt a bad hand in life be condemned?

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m just sitting at my computer, shaking my head that someone can think this way.

And that comparison is terrible.

And “nicer” is a terrible way to try and describe the difference between a rapist/murder and someone who isn’t convinced that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God.

And some people in this thread wonder why I think religion is a terrible, terrible thing.

It actually makes a tremendous deal of sense. Imagine a person born into terrible circumstances, abused, exposed to drugs, etc. All he knows is violence and he acts accordingly. One day, he truly repents, asks Jesus for forgiveness.

Yeah but there’s no difference between that guy and the guy who rapes and murders for fun despite having every possible socio-economic advantage, and then one day he truly repents and asks Jesus for forgiveness.

And under the Christian view, at least as I’m familiar with it, you are right. But not only is there no difference in sinfulness and potential for repentance between those two murderers, there is no difference between them and you. Again, in terms of sinfulness and repentance. That is different than the obviously worse harm they have done.

And that, they say, is what makes Christian salvation wonderful. No matter how truly awful a person has been, it is possible to be saved.

Wait before pulling the plug

TV’s Frink said:

Half the time I can’t tell what Mrebo is trying to say, and his follow up posts only make it more confusing.

And I think he does it on purpose.

I don’t. I sometimes think you read things in a very black-and-white way. Or maybe you’re just looking for the bottom line conclusion.

The problem with the exchange with Dom is that he responded in a sarcastic way that misrepresented what was being said, so I responded in kind.

To respond to his more recent question, there is a great amount of space between supporting certain civil rights laws and supporting any and every law seeking to address civil rights issues. There are innumerable reasons why certain laws may be supported and others opposed. The idea that it is black-and-white/with-us-or-against-us is wrong.

snooker said:

The way I read it you used snooker as a verb. Like, you weren’t responding to me? That’s what confused me.

Ohhh…there is a snooker. And that is you. My powers of observation are unparalleled.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m just sitting at my computer, shaking my head that someone can think this way.

And that comparison is terrible.

And “nicer” is a terrible way to try and describe the difference between a rapist/murder and someone who isn’t convinced that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God.

And some people in this thread wonder why I think religion is a terrible, terrible thing.

It actually makes a tremendous deal of sense. Imagine a person born into terrible circumstances, abused, exposed to drugs, etc. All he knows is violence and he acts accordingly. One day, he truly repents, asks Jesus for forgiveness.

Then you have a person born into relative privilege and benefits accordingly. S/he doesn’t believe in Christianity and acts like a fairly decent person. It doesn’t make sense the person had it easy gets a pass into heaven, basically by luck.

I understand your point that it doesn’t seem fair to condemn someone who is basically a good person. However sinful one may be, not accepting Jesus seems such a superficial fault. (The better versed to explain what that isn’t the case). I do wonder (and I have heard Christians wonder as well) whether God makes an allowance for those who find it difficult to accept the Bible/Jesus. I can see why it makes sense not to say that up front, since then people would feel free to ignore the Bible and just “be a good person,” however that makes sense to them.

What has been irreconcilable to me is the idea that you have to accept the Bible/Jesus in order for it to make sense, as that seems fairly backward.

snooker said:

Mrebo said:

😇

I didn’t intend to snooker.

But I agree nonetheless with mfm’s point.

I don’t get it.

His point about the unvirtuous lives of artists, actors, etc.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t trust people’s ability to behave virtuously. And by the way, I explicitly stated that the hypothetical non-racist was no fighting racism, just that he wasn’t specifically racist.

The best way to end segregation is to hope that everyone becomes nice and not racist.

This is confusing to me though because I thought that the reason we knew racism was over is because there are laws that prove they are equal.

If people don’t become nice and not racist, which is unrealistic anyway, then I guess we just need more and more laws and anybody who objects is worse than a racist.

moviefreakedmind said:

There’s no way I’m racist because I avoid interacting with all people regardless of color, but I do support civil rights. So I’m the best of both worlds.

Sincere question: What do you do to support civil rights?

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t trust people’s ability to behave virtuously. And by the way, I explicitly stated that the hypothetical non-racist was no fighting racism, just that he wasn’t specifically racist.

True about your hypothetical, but I think a baseline of non-racism in one’s daily dealings with others has power, if not counting as “fighting.” And if you get a lot of people to not be racist in their personal dealings - say the same number of people who advocate for a given law - then that would be really powerful.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

True, if you believe in science you’re going to hell. Climate’s very warm there.

On the positive side I bet that warming is seen as human caused.

I thought global warming was caused by not believing in Jesus?

If public policy on AGW could be fused with Christianity like that, maybe we’d stop the warming tomorrow.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that, especially seeing as how my example was focusing on civil rights in the 1960s, meaning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If a racist supports those, then he’s less damaging to our society in the long run then the kindhearted soul who opposes them.

There’s a lot to unpack. First, whether it is better for people to be virtuous in their own dealings or better to demand enforced virtue. I think the first so clearly better, especially in the long run.

I think the objection is that it isn’t realistic and that a great many people (too many people) aren’t going to be persuaded to act virtuously - except if threatened by legal repercussions. Lots to unpack here too about views of human nature and government.

A single kindhearted soul who opposes a law (presumably for a reason having nothing to do with liking racism, since he abhors it) won’t change the world anymore than a single racist who clamors for a law. A racist who clamors for an anti-racism law is better than a racist who doesn’t, but I do not think him better than the non-racist. People have an affect on the world through all their dealings, how they raise children and relate to others. I think a bunch of racists do more harm in the long run, whatever political positions they advocate.

Law has the power to persuade. And there you and I may find agreement. In the absence of many civil rights laws I think you’re right that racism would have persisted in many of its more virulent forms.

But I differentiate that from the idea that a racist who advocates political positions (any number of which may not be successful) is somehow better than a non-racist who fights racism in his daily life.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

True, if you believe in science you’re going to hell. Climate’s very warm there.

On the positive side I bet that warming is seen as human caused.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.

I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.

DominicCobb said:

New study finds dip shits think they’re better people. Others have more measured opinions.

Therefore, climate change is a hoax.

Indeed, science is overrated.

TV’s Frink said:

I find the existence of hell rather unlikely.

Okay, maybe not after we die then.

😇

I didn’t intend to snooker.

But I agree nonetheless with mfm’s point.

TV’s Frink said:

Hmmm…you believe different than I do? Ok, you’re going to be tortured forever after you die.

To be fair, I often think you believe this 😉

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.

It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.

But NeverarGreat offers an interesting alternative explanation (although I don’t think it is about moral licensing). I think more study is needed to test that theory and the moral licensing idea. Another thing that struck me is that the skeptics reported taking public transportation more. In my experience, people take public transportation when it is (1) readily available, as in urban areas and (2) for economic reasons. At least for that issue, I think feelings of guilt would be attenuated. I take public transportation all the time and it has nothing to do with virtue. I hate the idea of sitting in traffic and paying for parking every day. The train is faster and cheaper. On the other hand I loathe buses but those who don’t own a car and need to get around to places where trains don’t run don’t have a choice. While views on the environment can have an impact, public transportation use is based heavily on these very different sets of factors. Being eco-friendly is costly and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a simple divide on that basis.

My theory is that a great many people who claim to believe in AGW, don’t really. They know it’s what one is supposed to believe and so they say so. I would liken it to those who claim to believe in a set of religious beliefs and yet that belief is superficial. Similarly I think there are those who sincerely and deeply believe in AGW lumped in with a great many people who merely pay it lip service.

http://babylonbee.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-obnoxiously-heckles-scientific-inaccuracies-throughout-avengers-screening/

A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.