Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?)


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 986 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Quark Blast wrote:
..."Because I'm sincere I qualify as a member of religion XYZ", is a non sequitur....

Not at all. In the case of religious identity, moreso perhaps than any other type of identity, sincerity of profession is the best criterion by which an outsider can make an assessment. There are no objective grounds whatsoever to distinguish between the manifold and incompatible credal claims made by different people, each claiming the title "Christian."

Monophysites? Christians. Nestorians? Christians. Dyophysites? Christians.

At any point in history (including the present) members of each of those groups would label the others as not Christians (or, at best, heretical Christians), based on the fact that they "clearly" are in error (and, in all likelihood, would do as you have done with Marcion and ascribe deliberate will to the error).

At least as far as an outsider can make any assignation of identity, if they choose to do so, it behooves them to accept profession as a sufficient criteria.

Determining what consequences this may have for the value of religious identity to someone who does not share that identity is left as an exercise to the reader.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


"Because I'm sincere I qualify as a member of religion XYZ", is a non sequitur.

I could profess that I am a Muslim, but say also that Allah is only the greatest among many deities. That wouldn't make me a bad or marginal Muslim. I would be a blasphemer and, if I shared my POV, a heretic too.

Which is to say, by my thoughts and actions, and contrary to my professed faith, I am in fact no Muslim.

It's starting to get a little heated in here?

I don't think you understand the Islamic religion. The number of various adherents is probably as broad as Christianity, and indeed, there is a group that believes just as how you stated.

Various sects in Islam may dictate what they do or do not feel is correct theology, but to lay blanket claims over the entirety of Islam would be a fallacy in and of itself.

I find the same is true to Christianity. Time and time again many want to claim they are the one and only true Christianity, but in truth, the only real claim we could truly see of Christianity are those that follow (or at least believe) in the teachings of Christ.

In that light, some may even include some Muslims as Christians.

Religion and trying to define one or the other can get very interlaced when trying to specify what one does or does not believe.

In essence, Muslims are simply people who follow the teachings of the Koran or of Muhammad. There are many sects that try to claim they are the one and only true way, and all others are fallen or are heretics, but the Islamic religion overall is very broad in who is or is not included.

The same, I feel applies to Christianity, and other world religions. Saying one is Christian is far different than saying one is Presbyterian or even evangelical or fundamentalist, and saying one is Muslim is far different than saying one is Wahabbi.


Sissyl wrote:
Oh, I am well aware that misogyny exists. Why it would be particularly prevalent in atheist groups, though, I don't know.

So what's your problem then?

And if you say "I don't have a problem" or something with that sentiment, I'm not going to take you seriously, since you've regularly been vocally skeptical at the existence of misogyny in multiple different communities. You clearly have an issue with it being pointed out and I'm curious as to what that is.


Anyway, I'm sure the afterlife is gender neutral.
If there's an afterlife.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're saying I should do more to combat misogyny in Atheism + then? Are there any other groups I am not a member of that I should keep free of misogynist garbage?

Atheism + did not interest me because I found the + to be sorely dogmatic American leftism, which has never appealed to me.

And when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is always all because of misogynistic garbage, which I find poorly nuanced and simplistic. It is quite possible for groups to fail for other, indeed for all sorts of reasons, at least a few of which have nothing to do with nazi misogynist trolls and Fox news. Just to name one, a lack of interest from people who do not see atheism and + to be a natural fit in any situation. That was, as I stated above, my reason for not engaging in it.

In a general sense, opposition doesn't necessarily hurt groupings much. What it often does is confirm to its members that their viewpoint is important. When organizations die, they do so because of lack of interest.

I agree with Quiche, though. Time to end this derail.


My position on the subject - that is, the afterlife.

There's a "same time of life", that is a large domain of the universe which is perceptible by the spiritually conscious, but immaterial (for lack of a better term).

When we die, this event - our death - looks considerably different from the point of view of the spiritually conscious than from the point of view of those with a (more) materialistic sensibility.

Does the self survive death ? I could better answer the question if I was sure what the self is.
But I am not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, like, everybody's talking about the afterlife and stuff, but what about, like, y'know, the beforelife, man? Or, like, even the next-tolife?

Whoa. There's way more directions than after, man.

Think about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Sooo... because you have found one misogynistic atheism group on Google plus, atheists are all misogynistic garbage?

No. What I believe is that misogynism pervades our civilization at a deep level, so it's no surprise to find outcroppings of it in every venue.

You know the saying where there's smoke, there's fire? The fact that I found such attitudes in the one atheism group I joined in pretty much at random, would indicate that misogynism IS a thing around atheists. Gamergate showed how much it pervaded the video gaming culture. Misogyny is a culturewide, historical, world wide problem, from England's Victorian heritage, to modern day cultures that practise female genital mutilation.

Thank goodness there are no such things as alien visitations, I'd really would not want to explain such atavisms to them.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Sooo... because you have found one misogynistic atheism group on Google plus, atheists are all misogynistic garbage?

No. What I believe is that misogynism pervades our civilization at a deep level, so it's no surprise to find outcroppings of it in every venue.

You know the saying where there's smoke, there's fire? The fact that I found such attitudes in the one atheism group I joined in pretty much at random, would indicate that misogynism IS a thing around atheists. Gamergate showed how much it pervaded the video gaming culture. Misogyny is a culturewide, historical, world wide problem, from England's Victorian heritage, to modern day cultures that practise female genital mutilation.

Thank goodness there are no such things as alien visitations, I'd really would not want to explain such atavisms to them.

I expect they'd either have a nasty bunch of their own atavisms or have managed to overcome them, but expect them of primitive cultures like ours.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
You're saying I should do more to combat misogyny in Atheism + then? Are there any other groups I am not a member of that I should keep free of misogynist garbage?

Did I say either of those things?

I'm not surprised by the dodging though. I fully expected it. We'll drop it. I'll bookmark this page for later though. I expect that when some other group in society has issues of misogyny in another thread, you'll express doubt about the veracity of women's claims. I'll link this to remind others of the pattern of this behavior of yours.

I'll drop it though. You can have the last word if you wish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

Atheism + was literally two posts on a message board. It never got off the ground. As usual, the misogynist garbage was to blame, not that not even two people had the energy and dedication to sit down and plan up what Atheism + could and should be. What a surprise.

As for your "I'll use this as an example" comment, refer to it as you wish and do draw your own conclusions about what I say. You are going to anyway.


Sissyl wrote:

As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

Atheism + was literally two posts on a message board. It never got off the ground. As usual, the misogynist garbage was to blame, not that not even two people had the energy and dedication to sit down and plan up what Atheism + could and should be. What a surprise.

As for your "I'll use this as an example" comment, refer to it as you wish and do draw your own conclusions about what I say. You are going to anyway.

Seems to me you've got things backwards. Misogyny in atheism was the impetus for starting Atheism+ in the first place. It wasn't some nefarious scheme by "dogmatic American leftists", it was a response to actual experiences in various parts of the atheist community - including some high profile ones.

Now, if the response had just been "Blah. Not interested. Can we talk about atheism.", then you (and others here) would have a point about it just being poorly organized or atheists not being interested in leftist dogma, but it didn't. It drew a nasty backlash.


Hey, don't mess up people's conversations about things with relevant examples of bigotry. Conversations about bigotry make people uncomfortable. And clearly, if it isn't causing ALL the problems, it isn't worth talking about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f@*$ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh ho ho, I know something about leftist terror, and as a member of Deism+ I say to you, you will all bow to the Cult of the Supreme Being or face the National Razor!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).

You're the one telling me I'm not allowed to talk about something.

Everything so far has been pretty standard right-wing dismissal. Just curious, does having the topic discussed where you might see it endanger you somehow?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f+%%ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"

Intellectual terrorism is not material terrorism.

Intellectual terrorism is a concept that predates the 21st century by a large margin.

Maybe you think it's an hyperbolic notion ; and perhaps it is. But it's a quite useful concept.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f+%%ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"

Intellectual terrorism is not material terrorism.

Intellectual terrorism is a concept that predates the 21st century by a large margin.

Maybe you think it's an hyperbolic notion ; and perhaps it is. But it's a quite useful concept.

Oh, it's very useful. It's a great way to fight back against anyone trying to address bigotry. One can't really come out and say "But I support misogyny", so it's good to have another weapon to use. It's even a step beyond saying that people calling out bigotry is an assault on free speech. Now we can escalate to "terrorism".


Irontruth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).

You're the one telling me I'm not allowed to talk about something.

I think you've misunderstood me.

You're allowed to talk about anything you want. I'm not even sure it's my place to allow or disallow you anything.

Anyway, I didn't talk about you per se ; I was referencing the leftist american crowd in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).

While I won't deny that it's a thing that happens in left circles - circular firing squads are common joke, it's by no means limited to the left. Nor is ideological purity.

It's actually probably most commonly seen in religious circles - where even minor differences lead to schisms and sometimes wars.

But it's common in conservative politics as well - "America, love it or leave it!" The accusations of treason against anyone critical of Bush or the war before that all started to fall apart. The Tea Party taking down any GOP politician not sufficiently pure as a RINO.


thejeff wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f+%%ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"

Intellectual terrorism is not material terrorism.

Intellectual terrorism is a concept that predates the 21st century by a large margin.

Maybe you think it's an hyperbolic notion ; and perhaps it is. But it's a quite useful concept.

Oh, it's very useful. It's a great way to fight back against anyone trying to address bigotry. One can't really come out and say "But I support misogyny", so it's good to have another weapon to use. It's even a step beyond saying that people calling out bigotry is an assault on free speech. Now we can escalate to "terrorism".

Judging by her posting history, I don't see Syssil as supporting misogyny.

Judging by your posting history, I'm sure you're quite keen about free speech.

It's just that discussions on these boards about some topics - the condition of women, gender issues, - are quite shrill.
Usually.


Quiche Lisp wrote:


I think you've misunderstood me.

You're allowed to talk about anything you want. I'm not even sure it's my place to allow or disallow you anything.

Anyway, I didn't talk about you per se ; I was referencing the leftist american crowd in general.

And why would they be relevant to this thread? Are they here?


Quiche Lisp wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f+%%ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"

Intellectual terrorism is not material terrorism.

Intellectual terrorism is a concept that predates the 21st century by a large margin.

Maybe you think it's an hyperbolic notion ; and perhaps it is. But it's a quite useful concept.

Oh, it's very useful. It's a great way to fight back against anyone trying to address bigotry. One can't really come out and say "But I support misogyny", so it's good to have another weapon to use. It's even a step beyond saying that people calling out bigotry is an assault on free speech. Now we can escalate to "terrorism".

Judging by her posting history, I don't see Syssil as supporting misogyny.

Judging by your posting history, I'm sure you're quite keen about free speech.

It's just that discussions on these boards about some topics - the condition of women, gender issues, - are quite shrill.
Usually.

You were the one who brought up "intellectual terrorism", not Sissyl.

Much like you weren't speaking about Irontruth per se, I was referring to the larger tactic rather than anyone's particular use of it.


Point taken.


The particularism of the left is perhaps the tendency to attack those with close if not similar ideological tendencies than oneself.

The conservatives are more broadly traditional, and so perhaps more accomodating of minor variances in opinion.

Ideological purity.


And the afterlife is long gone :-).


Irontruth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:


I think you've misunderstood me.

You're allowed to talk about anything you want. I'm not even sure it's my place to allow or disallow you anything.

Anyway, I didn't talk about you per se ; I was referencing the leftist american crowd in general.

And why would they be relevant to this thread? Are they here?

Atheism + was mentioned.


Quiche Lisp wrote:

The particularism of the left is perhaps the tendency to attack those with close if not similar ideological tendencies than oneself.

The conservatives are more broadly traditional, and so perhaps more accomodating of minor variances in opinion.

Ideological purity.

Maybe theoretically, but that doesn't seem to be how it plays out. At least in mainstream conservative/liberal circles.

Maybe if you're comparing mainstream conservatives to fringe leftists?


Quiche Lisp wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:


I think you've misunderstood me.

You're allowed to talk about anything you want. I'm not even sure it's my place to allow or disallow you anything.

Anyway, I didn't talk about you per se ; I was referencing the leftist american crowd in general.

And why would they be relevant to this thread? Are they here?
Atheism + was mentioned.

How many people do you think identified as Atheism+?


Let me guess : you don't identify as an Atheist +. Nor are you sympathetic of their views.


Quiche Lisp wrote:
Let me guess : you don't identify as an Atheist +. Nor are you sympathetic of their views.

I don't believe anyone here identifies as Atheist+. I'm pretty sure no one has claimed it.

Some may be sympathetic to their views. I know I am, at least in general and in theory. I doubt I'm in lockstep with every single thing they've said or done.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).

There is also a word for that.

Strawman argument. As well as ad hominem argument.


Re : fringe leftists

Are there fringe leftists or are there fringe subjects relished by the left ?

Perhaps that the american left is trying to force many issues - i.e force them down people's throats - with regard to questions concerning the role and place of both sexes in the society. And when people resist the change, well-meaning leftists convince themselves that these people are benighted and irredeemable - rather than simply having different opinions or different lifestyles.

Hence we could say that when the leftists feel a resistance on some choice subjects they are much less tolerant than in other avenues.

It's just an hypothesis, mind you.


Quiche Lisp wrote:
Let me guess : you don't identify as an Atheist +. Nor are you sympathetic of their views.

No, my question is how many people do you think identified as Atheism+. As in, how many people in the whole world. Give me a ballpark.

You're equating them with the "leftist american crowd", which can include millions of people, so what % of them are Atheism+? I would assume a significant number (not a majority, but at least double digits) for you to be able to conflate the two.

Republicans in congress are currently trying to outlaw abortion, but I'm guessing you don't consider that shoving beliefs down people's throats, do you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

I was thinking it and you f+%%ing said it!

When I heard about the marathon bombing the first thought I had was: "Damn, this is like those lefty atheists on that message board!"

Intellectual terrorism is not material terrorism.

Intellectual terrorism is a concept that predates the 21st century by a large margin.

Maybe you think it's an hyperbolic notion ; and perhaps it is. But it's a quite useful concept.

If I had wanted to sarcastically exaggerate your statement instead of just sarcastically restate it, I would have said "Damn, this is just like those lefty atheists on that message board" ;)


Hama wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
As I said, when dogmatic American leftists don't get what they want, it is ALWAYS because people are misogynist, racist and otherwise *ist, not because the stuff they wanted might not have been attractive enough to matter for those who could join.

I couldn't agree more.

There's a word for that (well, 2 words) : intellectual terrorism.

Not that misogynism isn't a real thing. But when it's always about misogynism, gender or whatever - in the afterlife ever :-p -, well, then it isn't about these things at all.

In my opinion, it comes from a (typically North American)* puritanical worldview : the tendency not to discuss subjects, but to reduce people and their argumentation to their supposed/surely irredeemable flaws.

I.e : "You're a BAD person, and you corrupt whatever you say with your BADNESS."

* It's also a very leftist essentialist point of view a.k.a. ideological purity.**

** I was raised in a very leftist environment. I've got nothing against Lefties (Is that a word ?) that I haven't got against Conservatives :-).

There is also a word for that.

Strawman argument. As well as ad hominem argument.

I must confess : I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

There is also a word for that.

Strawman argument. As well as ad hominem argument.

You're just trying to scare people off with that fancy Latin.

There's a word for that (well, two words): verbal terrorism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Republicans in congress are currently trying to outlaw abortion, but I'm guessing you don't consider that shoving beliefs down people's throats, do you?

Sure it is. Throat-shoving is popular all across the political spectrum. That is the nature of the game. When republicans don't get what they want, it is all because gays, bad morals, people having sex, terrorists, immigrants and China, not because what they want is not interesting to people. Surprise.

But... Them doing it has no bearing on you doing it. They are not an excuse, nor a role model I'd recommend.

To get back to the discussion at hand:

The classic idea of an afterlife as painted by religious people generally speaking consists of you being in a land of eternal happiness, being yourself, and being with those you lost in your life. To me, it sounds like a deeply problematic concept, even or perhaps especially if you get all that. Eternity is a VERY long time to both be with people, and even existing at all. Imagine a billion billion billion years. That is an infinitesimal part of the time you will be there. Could you change in the afterlife? What would you eat that didn't taste like ashes? If your loved ones change, is it a given that you will like who they become? What if someone doesn't fit the demands of getting into Heaven anymore? If you got into Heaven but your husband did not, would it be okay to miss him? What if there is conflict? What if you don't like God after a billion billion billion years? I honestly can't see any answers to these questions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

is part pointer, and tries to point back to the topic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Let me guess : you don't identify as an Atheist +. Nor are you sympathetic of their views.

No, my question is how many people do you think identified as Atheism+. As in, how many people in the whole world. Give me a ballpark.

You're equating them with the "leftist american crowd", which can include millions of people, so what % of them are Atheism+? I would assume a significant number (not a majority, but at least double digits) for you to be able to conflate the two.

Republicans in congress are currently trying to outlaw abortion, but I'm guessing you don't consider that shoving beliefs down people's throats, do you?

I think a significant part of the american left (and the left in general) has an inclination - not always acted upon - for disparaging people when confronted by their arguments regarding hot-button issues.

They do this in a leftist fashion, by painting these people they disagree with as morally repugnant and socially retarded.

The conservatives (some of them, at least) have their specific way of disparaging people, but it's more that they tend to find those they disagree with as morally repugnant because of their breaking away from tradition [the (mythical) way things have always have been].

Also, on the left, there's (broadly speaking) a tendency to assert one's prejudice in more intellectual terms than on the right: " Those that disagree with me have faulty thinking or a lesser intellectual capacity ; they're dumb."

The more stringent lefties will sometimes describe their opponents as "insane", or some similar term.

The people on the right rarely describe the opponents (many on the left) that they want to disparage as "dumb". The lexical field of their condemnation has more to do with religious values.

To sum it up, in simplistic terms: the conservatives disparage people by painting these people as breaking away from supposedly traditional values. The leftists disparage people by striking a pose of (unawarranted) intellectual superiority.


Back to the topic.

It can safely be said that the religious way of describing the afterlife is largely metaphorical.

Sovereign Court

Coriat wrote:
Hama wrote:

There is also a word for that.

Strawman argument. As well as ad hominem argument.

You're just trying to scare people off with that fancy Latin.

There's a word for that (well, two words): verbal terrorism.

Standard terror tactics of logic and reason.


I think Coriat is being sarcastic tongue-in-cheek hyperbolic provocative :-).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Let me guess : you don't identify as an Atheist +. Nor are you sympathetic of their views.

No, my question is how many people do you think identified as Atheism+. As in, how many people in the whole world. Give me a ballpark.

You're equating them with the "leftist american crowd", which can include millions of people, so what % of them are Atheism+? I would assume a significant number (not a majority, but at least double digits) for you to be able to conflate the two.

Republicans in congress are currently trying to outlaw abortion, but I'm guessing you don't consider that shoving beliefs down people's throats, do you?

I think a significant part of the american left (and the left in general) has an inclination - not always acted upon - for disparaging people when confronted by their arguments regarding hot-button issues.

They do this in a leftist fashion, by painting these people they disagree with as morally repugnant and socially retarded.

The conservatives (some of them, at least) have their specific way of disparaging people, but it's more that they tend to find those they disagree with as morally repugnant because of their breaking away from tradition [the (mythical) way things have always have been].

Also, on the left, there's (broadly speaking) a tendency to assert one's prejudice in more intellectual terms than on the right: " Those that disagree with me have faulty thinking or a lesser intellectual capacity ; they're dumb."

The more stringent lefties will sometimes describe their opponents as "insane", or some similar term.

The people on the right rarely describe the opponents (many on the left) that they want to disparage as "dumb". The lexical field of their condemnation has more to do with religious values.

To sum it up, in simplistic terms: the conservatives disparage people by painting these people as breaking away from supposedly traditional values. The leftists disparage people by striking a pose of...

Do you think this conversation has benefited from your focus on painting amorphously large groups, that can be shaped however you like, with broad strokes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


But... Them doing it has no bearing on you doing it. They are not an excuse, nor a role model I'd recommend.

And what precisely have I forced you to do?

I didn't ask what ideas I'm espousing, or whether or not I've challenged your ideas. What actions have I prevented you from doing, or forced you to do?

For example, have I deleted your posts, banned you from the forums, changed your avatar, etc.


Scythia wrote:

At issue is that you are declaring yourself the arbiter of who is or is not an authentic member of a religion. Someone who claims the authority to proclaim the faith of all others has the same problem as someone who acts as their own attorney.

Unless you're a prophet of YHWH, then you're reaching a bit above your station.

Overstating your point a bit?

Up thread I quoted from the Corinthians book a portion that was most relevant to the OP (and thanks be to Google for helping me find it). Here it is again.

Corinthians wrote:

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.

Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.

And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

So, while I certainly am not a prophet of ####, this is a quote from one who claimed to be himself and was so approved by several other prophets who themselves claimed to have been personally instructed for years by the incarnation of ####.

On the topic of religion you can't find a statement with more bona fides backing it up.

That Corinthian passage is binding on Christian belief. Logic absolutely demands that it is.

Logic doesn't tell me that statement is true. And in fact I don't care.

What I care about is being able to reason effectively. The Corinthian passage is plainly written for didactic purpose. Anyone who can claim they don't know what that passage teaches is either mentally disturbed or functionally illiterate or a troll.

The passage really isn't open to varied interpretation. Note: It is however open to varied application. Which is why we see so many religious sects. People are too lazy/selfish to do a religion right and so simply hang on to the cred it gives them by verbally assenting to a given faith.

Point of clarity:
I am too lazy/selfish myself but have found enough integrity not to profess a faith.
The hereafter entails an endless dirt-nap AFAIK, but for the hear and now, logic rules and a good dose of compassion* doesn't hurt either.

* Compassion, a feature largely absent from the Internet and the rest of the world too for that matter. Why are people so non-pragmatic? **sad face**


quibblemcuh wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
..."Because I'm sincere I qualify as a member of religion XYZ", is a non sequitur....

Not at all. In the case of religious identity, moreso perhaps than any other type of identity, sincerity of profession is the best criterion by which an outsider can make an assessment. There are no objective grounds whatsoever to distinguish between the manifold and incompatible credal claims made by different people, each claiming the title "Christian."

Monophysites? Christians. Nestorians? Christians. Dyophysites? Christians.

At any point in history (including the present) members of each of those groups would label the others as not Christians (or, at best, heretical Christians), based on the fact that they "clearly" are in error (and, in all likelihood, would do as you have done with Marcion and ascribe deliberate will to the error).

At least as far as an outsider can make any assignation of identity, if they choose to do so, it behooves them to accept profession as a sufficient criteria.

Determining what consequences this may have for the value of religious identity to someone who does not share that identity is left as an exercise to the reader.

What you are proposing is a religion without dogma.

YAWN!...been said before.

The fact that today we know exactly what Marcion taught and yet those who profess that heresy are few if any tells me one thing. Marcion was a charismatic and powerful leader who sought to distinguish himself from his peer group through heresy and failed. He continues to be a failure because there is no merit to his peculiar reasoning. Marcion's teaching was not merely false but also pernicious. It has garnered no adherents on its own merits over the ensuing centuries.

greywolflord wrote:
stuff

See above. By your reasoning anyone can claim adherence to anything. Everything is relative. Nothing is true. blah blah blah.

Not interested. Sorry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Do you think this conversation has benefited from your focus on painting amorphously large groups, that can be shaped however you like, with broad strokes?

Yes :-).

And I get it, IronTruth: you can't be so arbitrarily defined.

Unless it's by that big chip on your shoulder :-p.


Sissyl is correct that the classical notion of a haven as a place of eternal happiness is replete with unanswered questions and problems. Given that different things please different people, this would require either an individualized eternity for each soul (something which seems impractical), or a great deal of settling for what you can get in the afterlife (which sounds lackluster).

There is a third option, although to me it sounds quite sinister: perhaps the being is changed so that they find heaven to be perfect. After all, the promise of free will is guaranteed in life, not beyond. Heaven could be the equivalent of the day room in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, if all the souls within are functionally lobotomized. What's worse is that I have discussed this option at length with a believer friend, and she is fine with it. She sees her soul as belonging to God and thus his to do whatever he wishes with, for eternity.

451 to 500 of 986 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.