Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
drummerboy said:
q. so, while in heaven, you will be in perfect bliss, even knowing that loved ones are being tortured for all eternity? how does that work?
a. homina homina
As if no one in two millennia of Christianity had ever thought of this question before. Assuming it’s unanswerable before exploring how centuries of Christian thinkers addressed it gives atheists a bad name.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
q. so, while in heaven, you will be in perfect bliss, even knowing that loved ones are being tortured for all eternity? how does that work?
a. homina homina
As if no one in two millennia of Christianity had ever thought of this question before. Assuming it’s unanswerable before exploring how centuries of Christian thinkers addressed it gives atheists a bad name.
Who said no one had ever thought it?
I just said I had not heard it put this way before.
Shoot me.
And if you have a cite, I'd be interested to see how it's been addressed, though I have little doubt that it's addressed poorly. Kinda has to be.
Also, the question is undoubtedly unanswerable in any intelligible form by, oh, I would guess 99% of christians.
drummerboy said:
Who said no one had ever thought it?
I just said I had not heard it put this way before.
Shoot me.
And if you have a cite, I'd be interested to see how it's been addressed, though I have little doubt that it's addressed poorly. Kinda has to be.
Also, the question is undoubtedly unanswerable in any intelligible form by, oh, I would guess 99% of christians.
The answer is that it's a silly and inaccurate generalization of belief.
There are lots of people who don't think about the larger meaning of beliefs they have - and that applies to political and social beliefs as well as religious beliefs.
But (a) making an assumption about what all people believe about a topic and then (b) using your own limited knowledge to draw a conclusion about them, says more about the beliefs of the person who thinks it's a good argument, than about religious belief in general.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
q. so, while in heaven, you will be in perfect bliss, even knowing that loved ones are being tortured for all eternity? how does that work?
a. homina homina
As if no one in two millennia of Christianity had ever thought of this question before. Assuming it’s unanswerable before exploring how centuries of Christian thinkers addressed it gives atheists a bad name.
According to the Google predictor, it's been asked that question a lot.
Threats to Catholic Charities staffers increase amid anti-migrant campaign
The article details right-wing, GOP hate for religious belief in action.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
Who said no one had ever thought it?
I just said I had not heard it put this way before.
Shoot me.
And if you have a cite, I'd be interested to see how it's been addressed, though I have little doubt that it's addressed poorly. Kinda has to be.
Also, the question is undoubtedly unanswerable in any intelligible form by, oh, I would guess 99% of christians.
The answer is that it's a silly and inaccurate generalization of belief.
There are lots of people who don't think about the larger meaning of beliefs they have - and that applies to political and social beliefs as well as religious beliefs.
But (a) making an assumption about what all people believe about a topic and then (b) using your own limited knowledge to draw a conclusion about them, says more about the beliefs of the person who thinks it's a good argument, than about religious belief in general.
well,no.
First, how is it silly or inaccurate? What part is wrong?
Second, while my knowledge about this specific question regarding heaven and hell is limited, I've heard enough of christian apologetics to be pretty certain of my prediction of general unintelligibility. It kind of has to be in this case because of the contradiction involved. And, of course, coming from the atheistic perspective that neither heaven or hell even exist in the first place, how can any argument assuming they do exist make any sense? If it made sense, I wouldn't be an atheist. In fact, I have to bump up my 99% to 100%.
I just thought that this particular argument pointed out the inherent contradiction pretty pointedly.
I did consider reconsidering my use of unintelligible, but now having read a smattering of answers from both regular folks and more authoritative sources, I'll stick with that word, at least until I come across an answer that makes sense.
drummerboy said:
well,no.
First, how is it silly or inaccurate? What part is wrong?
Second, while my knowledge about this specific question regarding heaven and hell is limited, I've heard enough of christian apologetics to be pretty certain of my prediction of general unintelligibility. It kind of has to be in this case because of the contradiction involved. And, of course, coming from the atheistic perspective that neither heaven or hell even exist in the first place, how can any argument assuming they do exist make any sense? If it made sense, I wouldn't be an atheist. In fact, I have to bump up my 99% to 100%.
I just thought that this particular argument pointed out the inherent contradiction pretty pointedly.
I did consider reconsidering my use of unintelligible, but now having read a smattering of answers from both regular folks and more authoritative sources, I'll stick with that word, at least until I come across an answer that makes sense.
It's silly and inaccurate as a generalization, mostly because it's based on, as you admitted, "my knowledge about this specific question regarding heaven and hell is limited".
Sometimes the answer which makes sense is one that understands that some things haven't been figured out yet. As Pope Francis has said, " I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is."
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
well,no.
First, how is it silly or inaccurate? What part is wrong?
Second, while my knowledge about this specific question regarding heaven and hell is limited, I've heard enough of christian apologetics to be pretty certain of my prediction of general unintelligibility. It kind of has to be in this case because of the contradiction involved. And, of course, coming from the atheistic perspective that neither heaven or hell even exist in the first place, how can any argument assuming they do exist make any sense? If it made sense, I wouldn't be an atheist. In fact, I have to bump up my 99% to 100%.
I just thought that this particular argument pointed out the inherent contradiction pretty pointedly.
I did consider reconsidering my use of unintelligible, but now having read a smattering of answers from both regular folks and more authoritative sources, I'll stick with that word, at least until I come across an answer that makes sense.
It's silly and inaccurate as a generalization, mostly because it's based on, as you admitted, "my knowledge about this specific question regarding heaven and hell is limited".
Sometimes the answer which makes sense is one that understands that some things haven't been figured out yet. As Pope Francis has said, " I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is."
so, you think a good answer to the question is to simply pretend there is no hell?
really?
drummerboy said:
Who said no one had ever thought it?
I just said I had not heard it put this way before.
Shoot me.
And if you have a cite, I'd be interested to see how it's been addressed, though I have little doubt that it's addressed poorly. Kinda has to be.
The question is presented as a glib, arrogant dunk on religion, as if no one had ever put up a defense (“homina homina”). It’s ignorance writ large.
On that count, you can do your own exploration.
drummerboy said:
And, of course, coming from the atheistic perspective that neither heaven or hell even exist in the first place, how can any argument assuming they do exist make any sense? If it made sense, I wouldn't be an atheist. In fact, I have to bump up my 99% to 100%.
In other words, two contrary beliefs can’t both make sense on their own terms, so why bother understanding the other’s terms?
That outlook has a history, and a present, of not working out well.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
Who said no one had ever thought it?
I just said I had not heard it put this way before.
Shoot me.
And if you have a cite, I'd be interested to see how it's been addressed, though I have little doubt that it's addressed poorly. Kinda has to be.
The question is presented as a glib, arrogant dunk on religion, as if no one had ever put up a defense (“homina homina”). It’s ignorance writ large.
On that count, you can do your own exploration.
yeah, not so much.
yes, it was glib. But not arrogant, as the homina homina was not meant to pretend that no has ever put up a defense.
It was meant to indicate that the question causes the apologist to enter a state of paroxysm as they try to piece together an answer.
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
drummerboy said:
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
Yes, and it has long offered some good advice: Beware your own Stephen Foster.
drummerboy said:
so, you think a good answer to the question is to simply pretend there is no hell?
really?
That's how you read that? Really?
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
The question is presented as a glib, arrogant dunk on religion, as if no one had ever put up a defense (“homina homina”). It’s ignorance writ large.
On that count, you can do your own exploration.
yeah, not so much.
yes, it was glib. But not arrogant, as the homina homina was not meant to pretend that no has ever put up a defense.
It was meant to indicate that the question causes the apologist to enter a state of paroxysm as they try to piece together an answer.
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
The response to Mr. DaveSchmidt is essentially confirming his description.
Look, if anyone wants a simplistic answer, I'm sure there are places to find them, and they'll be unsatisfactory, which then satisfies the person who wants the simplistic answer.
DaveSchmidt said:
In other words, two contrary beliefs can’t both make sense on their own terms, so why bother understanding the other’s terms?
suffering as I do from ignorance that has been writ large, I am having trouble deciphering that sentence.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
so, you think a good answer to the question is to simply pretend there is no hell?
really?
That's how you read that? Really?
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
The question is presented as a glib, arrogant dunk on religion, as if no one had ever put up a defense (“homina homina”). It’s ignorance writ large.
On that count, you can do your own exploration.
yeah, not so much.
yes, it was glib. But not arrogant, as the homina homina was not meant to pretend that no has ever put up a defense.
It was meant to indicate that the question causes the apologist to enter a state of paroxysm as they try to piece together an answer.
Have you ever actually seen The Honeymooners?
The response to Mr. DaveSchmidt is essentially confirming his description.
Look, if anyone wants a simplistic answer, I'm sure there are places to find them, and they'll be unsatisfactory, which then satisfies the person who wants the simplistic answer.
I've read some non-simplistic answers, and they are quite unintelligible.
I really have a hard time understanding and believing that the only way to heaven is through Jesus. So heaven only started filling up about 2,000 years now? Hell has to be bursting at the seams… or maybe it’s just filled with ashes?
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
Look, if anyone wants a simplistic answer, I'm sure there are places to find them, and they'll be unsatisfactory, which then satisfies the person who wants the simplistic answer.
I've read some non-simplistic answers, and they are quite unintelligible.
No doubt you found them so.
Maybe the "South Park" response works for you, where people go to hell for choosing the wrong religion.
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
Look, if anyone wants a simplistic answer, I'm sure there are places to find them, and they'll be unsatisfactory, which then satisfies the person who wants the simplistic answer.
I've read some non-simplistic answers, and they are quite unintelligible.
As subscribers of the most simplistic of all beliefs, we really should do something about this embarrassing side effect.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
Look, if anyone wants a simplistic answer, I'm sure there are places to find them, and they'll be unsatisfactory, which then satisfies the person who wants the simplistic answer.
I've read some non-simplistic answers, and they are quite unintelligible.
As subscribers of the most simplistic of all beliefs, we really should do something about this embarrassing side effect.
"most simplistic of all beliefs"
what?
drummerboy said:
"most simplistic of all beliefs"
what?
That’d be atheism. Nothing requires less thought.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
"most simplistic of all beliefs"
what?
That’d be atheism. Nothing requires less thought.
I can’t agree. Atheism at least requires SOME thought…
People indoctrinated since birth have the option of no thought
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
"most simplistic of all beliefs"
what?
That’d be atheism. Nothing requires less thought.
Hey now! No need to bring us into this, we're just minding our own business.
I've yet to encounter any human practice free of any internal inconsistencies. I suspect it's because the base truth -- we are alive now, but will die in the future -- is fundamentally absurd.
PVW said:
I've yet to encounter any human practice free of any internal inconsistencies. I suspect it's because the base truth -- we are alive now, but will die in the future -- is fundamentally absurd.
true, but the inconsistencies become embarrassing when they come from a supposedly infallible source.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
"most simplistic of all beliefs"
what?
That’d be atheism. Nothing requires less thought.
well, no.
choosing to believe in god requires significantly less. in fact, thought gets in the way.
In my experience, it is far more difficult to reject a gift, and much more satisfying to accept the gift of faith in God to ease your way into and through a life that brings pleasure as well as pain. In just the past 10 years, I have lost my husband of 64 years, and a son and a daughter at ages 49 and 57. Faith and sacred ritual are the bricks and mortar of living and give life meaning. Unfortunately free will keeps the Devil in business.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I heard an interesting argument about the illogicalness of heaven recently. Hadn't heard it before. Goes like this:
q. so, do you believe in heaven?
a. yes. and when I get there, I will be in a state of perfect bliss.
q. do you believe in hell?
a. yes. people in hell will suffer eternal torture.
q. do you have any friends or loved ones who you think will end up in hell?
a. yes.
q. so, while in heaven, you will be in perfect bliss, even knowing that loved ones are being tortured for all eternity? how does that work?
a. homina homina
religion is so goofy