Religion………..?

There's religion, and there's "ha ha look at all those poor stupid losers, aren't they thick and pathetic!"

On the other side of the coin, theres "Non belivers will rot in hell" or "Die Infidel" both a little more agressive than "ha ha look at all those poor stupid losers, aren't they thick and pathetic" I know which camp I'll be stopping in.

Most of us are happy in the middle somewhere though.

I cant say I truely belive in a God, but an afterlife is a nice thought, and if I was honest, the fear of god has stopped me doing bad things to nasty people. Somewhere in the middle sounds about right.

On the other side of the coin, theres "Non belivers will rot in hell" or "Die Infidel"

Yeah but the STW religious massive aren't like that, are they? Nor are the vast majority of Christians in the UK.

but an afterlife is a nice thought

an 'afterlife' terrifies me, as it sounds like infinite boredom 🙁

Daily Mash on Richard Dawkins[/url]

I especially like the final couple of paragraphs. 🙂

Don't worry simon, you'll be going to the "other place", for all those impure thoughts of muddy bottoms.

an 'afterlife' terrifies me, as it sounds like infinite boredom

Only if you go with the Sunday School "sitting around on a cloud singing all day about how lovely god is"…

Could be something else entirely….

an 'afterlife' terrifies me, as it sounds like infinite boredom

The point is, it's meant to be bliss. Your own idea of bliss. Not sitting on clouds playing harps – that's just some artists' representations of it.

The point is, it's meant to be bliss. Your own idea of bliss

unremitting bliss would be the ultimate torture

What if the Afterlife is full of bottoms though?

tiger_roach
Most of us are happy in the middle somewhere though.

Speak for yourself, speaking as a fundamentalist Atheist!

If there's an afterlife then some go to the nice place and some the not so nice – maybe the not so nice place is full of people being sickeningly nice to each other? And the nice place has all sorts of varied and interesting things to amuse yourself with (or just drugs to get you through it maybe?).

…sitting on clouds playing
harps – that's just some artists' representations of it.

Presumably artists who were extremely keen harpists and overly fond of comfortable furniture?

If my idea of paradise is endless sinning and debauchery, then what afterlife do I get if I lead a pious life?

What if the Afterlife is full of bottoms though?

FULL ?? One can have too much of a good thing…

Coyote – Member
Wot? No Woppit?

'sright…

unremitting bliss would be the ultimate torture

Oxymoron

FULL ?? One can have too much of a good thing…

Well then you wouldn't have too much in heaven, would you? By definition.

Just the right amount of bottoms, singletrack, cake, etc etc. If you didn't like people being nice to you, they wouldn't. If you wanted sex and drugs, they'd be there. That's the point.

Adders69:
Speak for yourself, speaking as a fundamentalist Atheist!

Grimy was referring to comments people make about believers/non-believers rather than the belief they hold and I said most are somewhere in the middle which is indeed correct. Having said that most are also somewhere between the extremes of committed believer and atheist which, despite your comment, I don't think you can disagree with can you? But yet you did.

If you wanted sex
and drugs, they'd be there. That's the point.

So if my idea of paradise is spending all day putting babies on spikes, microwaving kittens and fiddling with children, but I successfully managed to supress these thoughts during my "probationary period" on Earth, then I'd be free to do it all the time when I'm up with the skyghost people?

So if my idea of paradise…

I think this is a great example of "us" not having enough understanding of theology to argue about the subject in a meaningful way. I am 100% confident that someone who has a thorough understanding of our limited record of the (hypothetically real) god and the related stuff has a sound answer to this, which is grounded in the internal logic of the only source material available, and which is consistent with the church's doctrinal positions generally. We don't have enough knowledge of these arguments and speculations to do a half-decent job.

I imagine that the correct answer is that, if you'd spent a lifetime carefully refraining from doing things you knew to be evil, that paradise for you would be the removal of the temptation to do evil things. But I don't know. Whether there is temptation to sin in paradise must be a fairly important question. I'm sure there's a good answer to it*. 🙂

*accepting for the sake of argument the hypothesis that there is something existing in some sense which can be understood in some meaningful way to which these discussions relate.

If you wanted sex and drugs, they'd be there

but what if the people I wanted to have sex with didn't want to have it with me ?

soya eating vegetarians are the worst of them all.

I think this is a great example of "us" not having enough understanding of theology to argue about the subject in a meaningful way.

wrong. We know what we want way better that some theologian

if you'd spent a lifetime carefully refraining from doing things you knew to be evil

There's a key issue here – what actually constitutes evil? You really only have the bible to go on, but its accuracy and authenticity is highly debatable. You may drink and womanise, but that might not be evil at all in God's eyes. We really don't know.

Sounds like paradise to you is being a pro football player – but are they really happy…?!

We know what we want way better that some theologian

Well, if you are deriving your understanding of the nature of god purely from your own preferences and rather pedestrian imagination solely for the purpose of not believing in it that's fine. Fact of the matter is that otherwise intelligent people have been having a conversation about these issue for centuries, producing large amounts of learning. It may be pointless and bogus, but it's there, and it would probably answer a lot of our questions.

What you're doing is asserting that something is/isn't true, because you've supposedly identified a logical hole in something, without bothering to find out why people who think about this stuff don't think the hole is there.

We're doing is the equivalent of creationists arguing that evolution can't be right because there's no such thing as an animal with half an eye. They don't know enough about evolutionary biology to argue about it, so they end up getting pissed on if they accidentally expose themselves to an informed argument. 🙂

You may drink and womanise, but that might not be evil at all in God's eyes. We really don't know.

Wait.. what?

So it might turn out that God is actually quite into putting babies on spikes and I'm repressing all this sinning for no reason?

What if the one thing he really hates are his son's followers then?

your own preferences and rather pedestrian imagination

Whose pedestrian imagination?!!

Fact of the matter is that otherwise intelligent people have been having a conversation about these issue for centuries, producing large amounts of learning.

I'm well aware of this. A lot of it is ridiculously petty and domatic (literally) though, and as I understand it a lot of it (historically) is people who believe in varying degrees of literal interpretations of the bible arguing with each other based on that.

Of course, if you accept the bible to be the work of man, then it's useless, and God could be absolutely bloody anything.

What you're doing is asserting that something is/isn't true, because you've supposedly identified a logical hole in something

This aimed at me?

You really only have the bible to go on, but its accuracy and authenticity is highly debatable

This is true. It is however the only source (so far as the christian churches are concerned) suggesting the existence of god. If we say we do not believe the bible's account of what god's preferences on the subject of evil are, but we do believe that it is correct in asserting that there is a god then I suspect we have to accept that we're simply making it up as we go along. Again, I don't know, but I'm not convinced you can demonstrate the existence of god from first principles, and certainly not what his conception of evil and his ideas about how you're meant to behave might be. 🙂

No molgrips, it was aimed exclusively at Simonfbarnes. Sorry, I added the quote from him in an edit when I realised you'd posted subsequent to him. 🙂

Fact of the matter is that otherwise intelligent people have been having a conversation about these issue for centuries, producing large amounts of learning

large amounts of unfounded speculation more like, and irrelevant to me as I decide what I do not some dead people I've never heard of. However unimaginative, my preferences make sense to me and I like them better than anyone else's.

What you're doing is asserting that something is/isn't true, because you've supposedly identified a logical hole in something, without bothering to find out why people who think about this stuff don't think the hole is there.

no, actually I'm saying I prefer to work things out for myself rather than having someone else tell me what to think or do. I don't know how many gods there are, or why I should care about what they think if there are any, and the only truths I know concern my own immediate experience

NP BigDummy 🙂

I suspect we have to accept that we're simply making it up as we go along

Well that seems to be very evident to me. After all, Christianity in the UK (and elsewhere) has morphed hugely from how it originally started and tellingly, it has incorporated ideas from various phases of society (the Enlightenment for example) into its modern interpretation. So the idea that we are a Christian society (ie one that reflects Christian ideas) could well be ar*e-backwards – it could be that our Christianity reflects our society. The church would indeed have to change and adapt in the face of the much more powerful popular culture.

Again, I don't know, but I'm not convinced you can demonstrate the existence of god from first principles

I agree – but that could well undermine the concept of faith, as I believe has been postulated. Therefore, the only kind of God that makes sense is a very personal one. Which both reinforces and undermines its usefulness.

I believe that the religious in this coutnry are gradually arriving at this conclusion. Hence the difference between the numbers of people attending church, and the numbers describing themselves as religious or Christian.

actually I'm saying I prefer to work things out for myself

That may be right in a roundabout way Simon, but the way you're choosing to say it is by asking questions about the nature of paradise in response to molgrips' points above. They are (I'm confident) not original questions, and the fact that no-one on this thread knows the received answers to them does not mean that they cannot be answered in a satisfactory (internally consistent, anyway) way. 🙂

mmmmmmmm Bottoms ….

but the way you're choosing to say it is by asking questions about the nature of paradise

I was intrigued my molgrips' concept of paradise and testing its selfconsistency without for a moment believing it to be true

They are (I'm confident) not original questions, and the fact that no-one on this thread knows the received answers to them does not mean that they cannot be answered in a satisfactory (internally consistent, anyway) way

I love this 🙂 No here one knows the answer but there will be one, somewhere, and if you're a good little boy enlightenment will follow ? So confidence replaces argument ?

if you're a good little boy enlightenment will follow

That isn't what I meant, and you know it! 🙂 Someone out there will have thought about the answer and would be able to explain it perfectly lucidly. If we cared, we would be able to find an explanation reasonably readily.

If ton popped up with a thread entitled "string theory……?" and no-one on the thread could give a satisfactory explanation of some aspect of string theory we regarded as problematic we would not conclude that string theory was rubbish, we would conclude that the theorists able to explain it were not bored mountainbikers. I suspect the same holds good for theologians. 🙂

Anyway, as we both agree that there doesn't seem to be a god, and it isn't clear that this matters particularly I'm going to leave the thread alone and go and be baited by ro. 😉

but that could well undermine the concept of faith

proof would undermine faith, which is an act of will absent of substantiation

I was intrigued my molgrips' concept of paradise

It's not MY concept! I'm just reporting what I've read/seen/heard.

proof would undermine faith

This idea seems like a cop-out to me. Or proof that God is a woman… 😉

(JOKE!)