RicOlie_2

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

The position of most Abrahamic religions is that sex is for one thing and one thing only and that is to create children. Theologically it has it's basis in the Mesopotamian myth of the Garden of Eden. Adam and his third wife Eve steals the power of reproduction from God after listening to a talking peni...snake.

Eve was his third wife???   never heard that before.   Just who were his first and second wives? 

His first wife was Lilith, banished from Eden for not submitting to her husband's demand to be on top during sex, her children were ripped apart by angels. His second wife was destroyed without even gaining a name because Adam was freaked out by seeing her built from scratch in front of him.

God learned from this experience and put Adam to sleep while making Eve from his rib.

 Where's this from, may I ask? It certainly isn't Biblical, but I have heard of Lilith before (not what happened to her or why, though).

What Dominic said. I really appreciate you standing up for me and my religion d_e, but I think we would get farther by just dropping it.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?

I wasn't trying to avoid it, I just thought I'd answered it already. But anyway murder does not "have practical benefits for society in some cases" because the family of the murdered person would be harmed, the person themselves would be harmed (They are part of society) and society would be less-rich to the tune of one life. If a percentage of the population were happy about the murder then those people lack empathy (As I've already said). For the record I'm against the Death-Penalty in all cases (Except littering and talking/texting in a f*cking cinema!).

"What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself?" Fairly abstract question but my sense of empathy is directly derived from my own sense of self-preservtion and well being (As I've also already said) or to use a quote I read somewhere (I forget where) "Do unto to others as you would have done unto you".

"Survival of the fittest" only applies in pure terms to animals as they lack a sense of empathy. Empathy is what makes us uniquely human. Sure in most human contexts the "fittest" will win but they had a choice to concede or to never compete... an animal does not. For example, my cat derives pleasure from toying with a mouse, torturing it and then ripping it's head off and giving it to me as a present. My cat isn't evil, it just lacks a sense of empathy for the mouse. But my cat still has emotions and feelings however and would be hurt if I treated it in the same way as it treated the mouse but that would never change it's behaviour. That's only something we humans have evolved.

It's a shame when religous people choose to ignore this sense of empathy and instead choose to act against their own nature to follow the commandments in a book. e.g. "Homosexuality is wrong because my religion says it is, despite the evidence of my feelings of empathy for them (Because I'm a good person) and them being happy that way, them doing no harm to anyone else and me knowing that gay guy at work that is actually really nice etc etc".

 I must admit I'm not satisfied with your answer, but if that's the best you can give, then no big deal.

As to your last paragraph, what does a gay guy being nice have to do with some religions teachings against homosexual sex and marriage? We don't teach that gay people are bad, or that they should be shunned, but rather that gay sex and marriage is wrong. Not all homosexuals have homosexual marriages or sex just like not everyone who has a desire to give a bully a good punch in the face follows through with it (not a perfect analogy, but that's not the point). In my religion, homosexual sex and marriage is considered wrong but we are supposed to love homosexuals (as in filial love, not erotic love ;) ).

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

Cut darth_ender some slack! Maybe he has a cold. :)

mee 2 its is sew anoying adn i wish thay woodnt doo that

I do appreciate that you are acting in my defense, or at least in defense of my thread, but I propose that we just ignore him until he smartens up.

^Nice unintentional Star Wars reference (...sort of :P).

I dropped my pawn in 2c.

DominicCobb said:

I never knew that Twilight Zone episode was actually how people viewed hell. Interesting, thanks for the clarification.

 Remember that I was just giving an analogy of why hell is torture, so that isn't exactly what it is. Hell is torture because you constantly want more, and for eternity. After a while it would just get unbearable.

HotRod was being a jerk, but I think the best attitude to have is not to be hypocritical yourself, but just to ignore him.

No offense, I just don't think this is the best way to react.

DominicCobb said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

I thought about starting this thread and then saying that I probably wouldn't answer any questions because atheists don't have a set set of beliefs. Any question that gets answered just comes down to the answerer's view on life. 

So I just want to make it clear that these answers don't represent the beliefs of all atheists. I'm sure we all know that but it's a common misconception that all atheists think the same thing and treat others and the world the same way. I actually see atheism as the belief system that faces the most prejudice (let me be VERY clear that what I mean by this is that I think many theists have a low opinion of atheists - I do not mean AT ALL that they are persecuted or are the victim of any sort of violence, because they aren't).

What really annoys me the most is when theists see atheists as people who have no soul or sense of empathy. Again, I don't mean you guys, but I've met people in the world like this. Just anecdotally I feel like a lot of theists have a low opinion for atheists that they'd never have for a theist with a different religion.

Personally, my hands are off religion so it annoys me when people try to argue against my atheism (which, again, I don't think you see a theist doing this to a theist of a different religion) because I just want no part in religion. For me, God doesn't exist, and that's that. 

Of course, this makes it all the more rewarding when I meet a theist who totally respects my beliefs.

This wasn't really a question, but whatever.

 I respect everyone's beliefs, but I don't agree with most of them. I have a question for you though. Supposing Christianity was true and you died an atheist. Since you want no part in religion, would you want to go to heaven or hell?

I'm just asking out of curiosity. To further clarify, I will define heaven and hell for you. Hell: total absence of God (and supposedly of most or all good); heaven: the presence of God and the worship of him. Both of these are for an infinite length of time and one cannot go from one to the other.

 Yeah, I think most respect others beliefs. If I said otherwise, that was a mistake. I just think many don't.

As to your question, I don't know. From what I learned when I was a Catholic hell really sucks a dick in terms of how well your stay will be, but if it's just the "total absence of God" than I don't know, why do I want God? What makes him so great? I don't know.

Also, wouldn't I go to purgatory first and ask for forgiveness? That's what I'm banking on.

To be honest, a lot of religious concepts seem to me to be confusing or hypocritical. Sometimes I think about how I could make Catholicism make more sense. But that's obviously neither here nor there. 

 The reason hell is supposed to be such a crappy place to vacation is because the absence of God isn't supposed to be a great thing. Think about this analogy of hell:

You are given the entirety of earth on which you can do whatever you want and go wherever you please. The downside is that you are the only human being on the planet, because you get it for yourself, after all. After an eternity--an eternity!--would you not get bored. After the boredom, wouldn't you find it torture being alone on the planet and having done everything you could possibly do a thousand times over, yet knowing you hadn't even been there for a billionth of the amount of time you were going to be there?

Because I believe God is infinite, then an infinitely long stay in heaven would still be enjoyable. The earth is finite, so if you were given the earth as your hell (that's not what I necessarily believe hell is, I'm just trying to make the concept more clear) you would eventually get pretty darn sick of it.

I'm sure that if God is truly just then he will account for the things that made you decide he didn't exist. No one can really claim to know how that works though.

TV's Frink said:

Indeed.

If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.

 So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.

What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

@ Ryan

Religious texts? Who said anything about those? What I am asking is how you can be so sure that using empathy and your brain are the way to discern good from evil? What about acting on what would help society survive the longest and be most productive? Why do you think that that is not a legitimate way to determine the difference between right and wrong?

You tell me?

(However for myself, I am sure that murdering half the planet to make life for the other half better is wrong because I'd feel empathy for the other half).

The point I was making about Religious texts is that they don't have the answers for every issue (Right or wrong) yet I'm sure you yourself can (And do) make your own mind up on those things anyway. So why not do that with everything?

 No, religious texts don't have the answers for every issue. That is why I am Catholic. Catholics are supposed to accept the Bible and Church teachings as truth, using both to help decide what decision to make when the answer is not given by either one (meaning acting in accordance with those teachings and texts and in the spirit of them--practically every decision can be made that way).

You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?

DominicCobb said:

I thought about starting this thread and then saying that I probably wouldn't answer any questions because atheists don't have a set set of beliefs. Any question that gets answered just comes down to the answerer's view on life. 

So I just want to make it clear that these answers don't represent the beliefs of all atheists. I'm sure we all know that but it's a common misconception that all atheists think the same thing and treat others and the world the same way. I actually see atheism as the belief system that faces the most prejudice (let me be VERY clear that what I mean by this is that I think many theists have a low opinion of atheists - I do not mean AT ALL that they are persecuted or are the victim of any sort of violence, because they aren't).

What really annoys me the most is when theists see atheists as people who have no soul or sense of empathy. Again, I don't mean you guys, but I've met people in the world like this. Just anecdotally I feel like a lot of theists have a low opinion for atheists that they'd never have for a theist with a different religion.

Personally, my hands are off religion so it annoys me when people try to argue against my atheism (which, again, I don't think you see a theist doing this to a theist of a different religion) because I just want no part in religion. For me, God doesn't exist, and that's that. 

Of course, this makes it all the more rewarding when I meet a theist who totally respects my beliefs.

This wasn't really a question, but whatever.

 I respect everyone's beliefs, but I don't agree with most of them. I have a question for you though. Supposing Christianity was true and you died an atheist. Since you want no part in religion, would you want to go to heaven or hell?

I'm just asking out of curiosity. To further clarify, I will define heaven and hell for you. Hell: total absence of God (and supposedly of most or all good); heaven: the presence of God and the worship of him. Both of these are for an infinite length of time and one cannot go from one to the other.

@ Ryan

Religious texts? Who said anything about those? What I am asking is how you can be so sure that using empathy and your brain are the way to discern good from evil? What about acting on what would help society survive the longest and be most productive? Why do you think that that is not a legitimate way to determine the difference between right and wrong?

Sorry, I edited my post. Please respond to the edit.

@Ryan

If I were to decide that what was beneficial to the human species was to eliminate all non-beneficial members of society (i.e. mentally and physically ill, old, and homeless people among others) and go around murdering them all, how would you be able to tell me I was wrong? Because you felt empathy for those people? What if I said that I overcame my empathy to aid the human species, because those people only held others back and I was doing others a favour by ridding them of useless people. What would you say to that?

EDIT: You said that feeling empathy and ignoring it makes people evil, but what is that opinion/belief founded on? Why do think it is that that makes a person evil instead of something else? Suppose I think that good and evil is determined by someone's willingness to do what is good for society as a whole and suppose that was killing off the baby boomers because people were held back by caring for them and too many working hands were wasted on them instead of doing something that would benefit society in the long run. Who would you be to say that the way I determined right from wrong was incorrect while the way you did so was?

From your above statement I gather that I am being led into a trap, but I'm doing this anyway.

P-2d as well.

Ryan McAvoy said:

timdiggerm said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Short easy answer = Because I feel empathy.

I don't need a God to tell me that something is wrong because I can work it out for myself using my brain. e.g. I would miss my family if somebody murdered them so I know somebody else would be sad if I commited murder.

That of course extends and answers every other moral question.

It doesn't though. Lots of people have felt empathy for some and still done terrible things to others. 

Those people were wrong.

 Why do you think you have the authority to say that?

The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty low. Even the universe has limits.

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-chances-intelligent-life-elsewhere-2295217.html

Alright, thanks. Sounds like you have pretty similar views to me on the subject.

P-8d

Sorry I took so long...I was away from home last night and had some catching up to do over on a certain one of my threads this afternoon. :P

HotRod said:

And can I just say one thing then I'll stop. 

I hope there is a God. I hope that my mother is sitting up there watching the grandchildren she never met grow up to be the most beautiful people. 

I hope one day to join her.  I really do. But I'm sorry, the church is full of nasty people who do not deserve any if the credit given to them. 

Believing in God is one thing, trusting a priest, or those around him, thats something totally different

 Fair enough, and I'm sorry that the terrible example of some members (and sadly leaders) of my religion turn you away. We don't in any way think that priests have ultimate authority in their parishes, but they are supposed to be fatherly figures and it is sad when they are instead child-molesters or alcoholics.