Originally posted by invigorateLet's analyse your statement:
I would take away any mention of an afterlife - face facts you live once make the most it because you'll be dead soon.
Relgious judgements wouldn't be need to be made. The person who needs to get divorced because their spirit is being crushed they would be able to divorce easily.
Gays could celebrate true freedom.
Society would be the judge of ...[text shortened]... between the religious and the non religious, I hope we can all co-exist peacefully.
If I remove the "afterlife" from the equation, would that improve the human condition? I would say not. Religion is a crutch for the weak willed.
I, being atheist, lead a moral life, and I have no "sleepless nights". I do not maim, kill, dishonour or steal.
I do not live up to my potential, but I make an effort to improve each day - this improvement will have visible effects on my family and myself. I do not live in hope of salvation, nor do my beliefs corner me into "selfish" acts; hoping for said salvation.
In my opinion, lose religion in its entirety - it serves no purpose other than to promote selfish acts for a future reward.
As for the divorce angle, once again religion is selfish. In my first marriage, my wife and I fought constantly and our financial situation was dire. My daughter was also not served in this arrangement.
After our divorce, my ex-wife and I are friends, our individual finances are better, and my daughter is happy. Religion here would too have been a selfish act - salvation?
I am afraid that a "secular" society is a pipe dream - it sounds good, but would not work. Theists exert far too much control on society - I can change the TV channel when the biblical reading comes on, but mention evolution during "family" viewing time and "oh my!"
Homosexuality? - each to his own. I have no views either way, except when coercion is involved, and that is another debate in itself.
Originally posted by AlcraI would add that prison counts are on your side, at least in the US. Prisons contain a disproportionatly large percentage of xtians and a disproportionately small percentage of atheists.
Let's analyse your statement:
If I remove the "afterlife" from the equation, would that improve the human condition? I would say not. Religion is a crutch for the weak willed.
I, being atheist, lead a moral life, and I have no "slee ...[text shortened]... rcion is involved, and that is another debate in itself.
Of course, the bean counters didn't have a column for the 'True Christians' TM. I'm sure that there are no 'True Christians' TM that are imprisoned. 🙄
Well although I am not an atheist, I don’t understand why you believe they would hate this one. In fact, I think many of us would dig doing this, including myself. I don’t think I am going to say anything different what was really already said but here it goes:
So the premise is I am “God”; make the universe, right?
Okay, like Scheel and AthousandYoung had already stated, “pain and suffering” are non-existent. How? “POOF”!!! I’m God; no reason is required. So yes that means you could set yourself on fire, collide into a freight train headfirst, jump off any building and never experience any pain. By the way, anyone in my universe who wanted to would have the powers of Superman and there would be no kryptonite. Every day would be the most beautiful day every witnessed and no natural disasters would ever occur. There would be no more war for land or greed because there would be plenty of everything for everyone.
How? “POOF!!!!!” I’m God.
As God, all beings would be programmed with the following instructions:
Love and be good to each other and all things.
So yeah, I guess a guy named Adolf Hitler would have existed but he wouldn’t be the guy we know him as. He would be another good person because I created him as such.
I don’t agree with eagles54 saying you can’t or rather you couldn't have pleasure without pain. In the current universe, I suppose this could be the case. In my universe you can. I pretty much agree with invigorate about not mentioning an afterlife because in my universe, you would be immortal, if so desired. If not, each person would have the afterlife or not of whatever they perceive.
I imagine this may invoke a response of “well you are just being illogical or unreasonable or whatever….”. I agree but why does my creation of the universe have to succumb to logic or reason? I think my universe would be solely much more desired than the one we are currently living in.
So do I think God (assuming there is one and the one you are referring to) did a good job with our current universe? For some of us it’s great but for many (say right now Terri Schiavo, victims of natural disasters, abused people for example) he could have done a lot better.
Originally posted by eagles54How would you identify pleasure as being pleasurable without the contrast of experientially knowing pain?
How would you identify pleasure as being pleasurable without the contrast of experientially knowing pain? ATY, if you lived in a world outside of dualities where you and all inhabitants only experienced what in this sphere is called 'pain ...[text shortened]... t arises in interdependence with north, west, and south.
Pleasure could be contrasted by the lack of pleasure. Sometimes you're in ecstacy, sometimes you're happy, sometimes you're indifferent. But then it doesn't need contrasting against anything. Pleasure feels good...you don't have to compare it to anything.
ATY, if you lived in a world outside of dualities where you and all inhabitants only experienced what in this sphere is called 'pain,' you would not define it as such because there would be no opposite sensation to contrast it with.
There would be pain and 'not-pain', as opposed to the current world which is not dualistic as you claim but has two independent axes - the pain axis and the pleasure axis - that define four quadrants. One can experience nothing; one can experience pain or pleasure; and one can experience both at the same time (ever heard the term 'bittersweet'?)
If then you experienced lessening values of the fundamental sensation, you would have to ascribe the increasing values of 'pleasure' to them
A little confusing. If there were lesser and greater values of pain (or 'the fundamental sensation' as you put it if I understand correctly), then I would have to...call these variations pleasure? No, I could use any word I wanted. If I did call them pleasure, it would not mean the same thing as it does in this world. There is a difference between getting a papercut on your finger and being tortured by an expert. That difference is not pleasure.
How would you know the value of 'east' without contrasting it with the values of north, west, or south?
North/south and east/west are independent things, first of all. In a one dimensional world one could have east without north. In addition, the analogy between pain/pleasure and east/west is flawed. One can experience both pain and pleasure at the same time. One cannot go both east and west at the same time unless you are playing word games and talking about going around the world, and one can never go both north and south at the same time.
Originally posted by Darfiusthats an easy one... i wouldnt make man... i think the world would be a work of art in motion if not for the constant disruption and destruction man has caused... thats all id change...
For all of you atheists who just hate this one, this is your chance to make a better universe than God.
What would you change/add/take away?
Have fun.
Originally posted by Darfius
Well, the people who were executed for their vile crimes used their free will for evil. Are you suggesting that the evil never be punished???
Oh my...
You are avoiding the example. The Medianite kiddies were not evil (perhaps in your vengeful god's eyes the parents were, but the kids weren't) and yet what does your god do? Slaughter them.
Charming. You support a cruel and unjust god.
You are avoiding the example. The Medianite kiddies were not evil (perhaps in your vengeful god's eyes the parents were, but the kids weren't) and yet what does your god do? Slaughter them.
Remember, it wasn't the "kids", it was the boys. What should the Israelites have done with them? Let's here suggestions. Remember, the goal is to get them to Heaven.
Charming. You support a cruel and unjust god.
I support a merciful and just God. We should die because of our sins. He loved us too much, though, and came to earth Himself to die for us.
Originally posted by DarfiusThat's OK then. Kill boys, spare the girls so they can be raped and enslaved...Or is it kill the boys so they can go to heaven and the girls can stay and be raped and enslaved...
[b]You are avoiding the example. The Medianite kiddies were not evil (perhaps in your vengeful god's eyes the parents were, but the kids weren't) and yet what does your god do? Slaughter them.
Remember, it wasn't the "kids", it was the boys. What should the Israelites have done with them? Let's here suggestions. Remember, the goal is to get ...[text shortened]... die because of our sins. He loved us too much, though, and came to earth Himself to die for us.[/b]
If this is your god's mercy then pray that I go to hell.
You paint a very poor picture of Christianity.
You're twisting what I say into something unrecognizable, so I would imagine your version of Christianity sounds nasty.
The girls weren't raped. The Bible specifically warns against raping. They were enslaved as prisoners of war for 7 years, when they would be freed.
The boys would have grown into men and threatened the people our Savior Jesus Christ was destined to come from. They also would have gone to hell due to their free will choice to deny God.
I asked you for suggestions of what the Israelites should have done with them.
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius, your ignorance is sometimes astounding. What do you think the masters did with their slaves? The Bible may specifically warn about raping, but it also warns against killing. Yet they Israelites killed. Are you claiming that they did not rape their enemies children? Such innocence...
You're twisting what I say into something unrecognizable, so I would imagine your version of Christianity sounds nasty.
The girls weren't raped. The Bible specifically warns against raping. They were enslaved as prisoners of war for 7 years, when they would be freed.
The boys would have grown into men and threatened the people our Savior Jesus Chri ...[text shortened]... eny God.
I asked you for suggestions of what the Israelites should have done with them.
What could the Israelites done with these nasty, despicable boys? Oh, how about showing them some love and compassion. Perhaps adopting them and bringing them up as their own children. That would be a nice thing to do...
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't think you understand what the terms 'merciful' and 'just' mean. Lying is a sin. If we deserve to die for our sins, then that means that if one lies, one deserves to die. But it is false that by lying one thereby deserves to die. Killing somebody for lying is neither merciful nor just.
I support a merciful and just God. We should die because of our sins. He loved us too much, though, and came to earth Himself to die for us.
Originally posted by bbarrOn the contrary, I am quite clear on what they mean.
I don't think you understand what the terms 'merciful' and 'just' mean. Lying is a sin. If we deserve to die for our sins, then that means that if one lies, one deserves to die. But it is false that by lying one thereby deserves to die. Killing somebody for lying is neither merciful nor just.
Why is it false that by lying one deserves to die? Are you aware what is meant by 'die'? Physical death is not meant. Sin is like a virus for the soul. It infects you and twists your soul into something that is opposite of God. Since God is happiness, love and life, the oppositite of that is despair, hatred, and death.
And it is false in your point of view, which you must admit is vastly inferior to God's and is shaped by society.
Darfius, your ignorance is sometimes astounding. What do you think the masters did with their slaves?
Made them work for free.
The Bible may specifically warn about raping, but it also warns against killing. Yet they Israelites killed. Are you claiming that they did not rape their enemies children? Such innocence...
The Bible warns against murder. It also said "an eye for an eye". The Israelites killed the boys as a defense measure, and because the boys would have died of starvation in the desert. The Israelites were a nomadic tribe who had already taken on responsibility for the women's well being, and the boys would have starved them, and also likely would have rebelled or threatened Israeli women.
Of course no rape occurred. No such thing as a "defensive" rape.
What could the Israelites done with these nasty, despicable boys? Oh, how about showing them some love and compassion. Perhaps adopting them and bringing them up as their own children. That would be a nice thing to do...
Difficult for a nomadic tribe to show love and compassion for the sons of enemies who tried to kill them earlier that day. Starvation likely would have resulted if they did what you suggested, not to mention the risk of the boys going to hell when they grew up by turning on their masters or master's wives.
I wish you would stop projecting modern day thought onto nomadic Israelites under a theocracy led by God in 1500 BC.
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius, you don't make sense.
[b]Darfius, your ignorance is sometimes astounding. What do you think the masters did with their slaves?
Made them work for free.
The Bible may specifically warn about raping, but it also warns against killing. Yet they Israelites killed. Are you claiming that they did not rape their enemies children? Such innocence...
The Bible war ...[text shortened]... p projecting modern day thought onto nomadic Israelites under a theocracy led by God in 1500 BC.[/b]