Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.

[St.Ricky]

6 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

How can you reject that argument, it's factually correct?

Nobody believes that more than one religion is the truth, they believe that, at most, one is the truth.

Then you need to revise your thinking or widen your circle.

One can believe in God but see that different people are on different pathways. It's not perhaps the norm by any means but it does happen. 

Free thinkers can choose whether or not to believe in God or not. They might also choose a religion (see other comments on here about that). They don't need to believe that this was the only possible one nor that it is the only way to succeed in reaching the promised land in afterlife. 

Give people some credit. 

[Doakes]

55 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

If you use religion as a tool, you are basically lying to people to control them.

No claim, religious or otherwise, should be assumed to be truth. Someone (Carl Sagan?) said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If someone told me that they had a pet cat I would probably take them at their word as I am aware that people do keep cats as pets and it's also not something that would effect my life even if it turns out to be a lie. If they told me that they had a pet dragon, I'd want proof. Every false claim that you believe makes you more susceptible to believing the next false claim that you are told, hence the reason conspiracy theorists tend to believe most (if not all) conspiracy theories and don't stop at just one. It's a slippery slope and something that should be discouraged.

Using your own sense of right and wrong to evaluate religious "teachings" means that you have absolutely no need for the religious "teachings" in the first place. No adult who chooses a religion (indoctrinated children is a different matter) gets their morals from the religion, they choose a religion that fits with their pre-existing morals. That's why people, like Cornwall's workmate, change religions. They don't like what one religion (or denomination/sect) is "teaching" about morality or behaviour, so they choose another one that "teaches" what they already believe is morally or behaviourally right.

 

You're stretching so far that I'm worried you'll pull a muscle 

Your view on religion is very black and white. You seem to be assuming that every religious person needs to accept every single word written in the scripture. That's not how it works in reality.... People pick and choose what they take from it.

Even if you're not religious, you can read a book like the Bible and take something from it. I'd view the religious texts as stories of knowledge, (or as I said before, maps of meaning) passed on from previous generations. You would clearly view it as some kinda evil means to control people. 

Everyone has the freedom to read what they want to read and learn what they want to learn. And also to believe what they want to believe. There's been many conspiracy theories which have turned out to be 100% true, so to say every conspiracy theory should be dismissed, is also a very totalitarian view of society. If you make the assumption that the state/government are always being truthful, and all conspiracy theorists should shut the f**k up, doesn't that fully contradict your view that religion should be questioned?

 

[Doakes]

22 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Where do I start?

Where am I stretching?

I never said all conspiracy theories should be dismissed so the rest of that bit is a non sequitur.

Yes, people pick and choose the bits they take from a religion - the bits that fall in with their already existing moral compass. That means that they do not have a need for the religion as that is what they believe already.

To be an adherent to a religion you do need to follow everything in it. In the case of christianity, all 613 commandments.

What knowledge does the bible (for example) pass down?

As I said in my reply to Ricky, you cannot choose to believe something. You are either convinced of it or not convinced. You cannot "choose" to be convinced.

Quote

Every false claim that you believe makes you more susceptible to believing the next false claim that you are told, hence the reason conspiracy theorists tend to believe most (if not all) conspiracy theories and don't stop at just one. It's a slippery slope and something that should be discouraged.

Come on now, what human could remember all 613 commandments and live by every single one of them?   Yer heid would explode. You're buying into this very extreme narrative that a religion must be taken literally, and every single commandment must be followed. In reality, that just doesn't happen. Most would use a religion as a framework to build their life around. You could identify as a Christian but never step foot in a church, probably wouldn't win you the Christian of the year award but it's personal to them, so it's still part of who they are as a person. 

Going back to what you said about conspiracies (quoted above) - you said that it's a slippery slope and should be discouraged. But you're basically saying that you believe every religion is a conspiracy, being used to control the masses..... You're not doing a very good job of practicising what you preach!

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

You have always refused to be vulnerable yet you are a St. Mirren supporter?

Hmmmm.

That's your most human post so far on this topic Slart. There is humour in there. I like it. 

[St.Ricky]

5 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Everyone who classes themselves as a christian should know and adhere to all 613 commandments. After all, they are COMMANDMENTS, not suggestions, and therefore it is not an extreme narrative. If you are allowed to pick and choose what to adhere to then you could, theoretically, have someone who claims to be a christian who doesn't believe that god is real.

The slippery slope was a reference to having false beliefs making you more susceptible to other false claims. The conspiracy theorists was just an example/analogy.

I don't think that I've said that all religions are conspiracy theories, or implied it. In spite of that how would not believing any religion to be true be "not doing a very good job of practicing what you preach" in respect of believing false claims. Everyone evaluates claims in relation to past claims, either accepted or rejected. If you look at some claim and come to the conclusion that it is false (or true) then you are more likely to come to the same conclusion about similar claims, because you have already done the ground work. For example, the christian bible claims that the universe and everything in it was created in six days. I don't believe that as ALL the evidence points to that not being the case. This means that I can rule out islam and judaism for the same reason, I don't have to go and evaluate it all again. It is a central tenet of all three religions and dismissing it for one means it can be dismissed for the others. Then dismissing the claims of the dirt man and rib woman, the talking serpent, that plants existed before the sun etc, it builds up a body of evidence that the book continually makes false claims. I'm not trying to claim that the authors of the book were lying, just that they didn't know what they were talking about. I'm quite sure that if they were around now, with all the modern science and discoveries they wouldn't be writing things like that or that stars can fall and land on earth - saying that just demonstrates that you have no idea what a star really is or that most if the "stars" we can see in the night sky are actually whole galaxies and not stars at all. Again, I'm not blaming the authors, they didn't have the information at the time. So conspiracy theory - not to begin with - used to control - again, not to begin with, but now, absolutely.

All beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be evaluated in the light of new evidence. Go to the conclusion that the evidence leads to, do not lead the evidence to a predetermined conclusion. If I was to be presented with enough good evidence for the existence of the biblical god then I would believe in him. I still wouldn't worship him as he is a moral thug.

 

Too much Slart. 

Stick with respecting others rights to:

1 Think differently. 

2. Come to different conclusions. 

Your use of humour is more effective than your dialogue and rhetoric imo. 

[smcc]

13 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Everyone who classes themselves as a christian should know and adhere to all 613 commandments. After all, they are COMMANDMENTS, not suggestions, and therefore it is not an extreme narrative. If you are allowed to pick and choose what to adhere to then you could, theoretically, have someone who claims to be a christian who doesn't believe that god is real.

The slippery slope was a reference to having false beliefs making you more susceptible to other false claims. The conspiracy theorists was just an example/analogy.

I don't think that I've said that all religions are conspiracy theories, or implied it. In spite of that how would not believing any religion to be true be "not doing a very good job of practicing what you preach" in respect of believing false claims. Everyone evaluates claims in relation to past claims, either accepted or rejected. If you look at some claim and come to the conclusion that it is false (or true) then you are more likely to come to the same conclusion about similar claims, because you have already done the ground work. For example, the christian bible claims that the universe and everything in it was created in six days. I don't believe that as ALL the evidence points to that not being the case. This means that I can rule out islam and judaism for the same reason, I don't have to go and evaluate it all again. It is a central tenet of all three religions and dismissing it for one means it can be dismissed for the others. Then dismissing the claims of the dirt man and rib woman, the talking serpent, that plants existed before the sun etc, it builds up a body of evidence that the book continually makes false claims. I'm not trying to claim that the authors of the book were lying, just that they didn't know what they were talking about. I'm quite sure that if they were around now, with all the modern science and discoveries they wouldn't be writing things like that or that stars can fall and land on earth - saying that just demonstrates that you have no idea what a star really is or that most if the "stars" we can see in the night sky are actually whole galaxies and not stars at all. Again, I'm not blaming the authors, they didn't have the information at the time. So conspiracy theory - not to begin with - used to control - again, not to begin with, but now, absolutely.

All beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be evaluated in the light of new evidence. Go to the conclusion that the evidence leads to, do not lead the evidence to a predetermined conclusion. If I was to be presented with enough good evidence for the existence of the biblical god then I would believe in him. I still wouldn't worship him as he is a moral thug.

 

Seems to me that most of these "613 commandments" apply only to those who follow the Jewish faith!

[St.Ricky]

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

57 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

That's your most human post so far on this topic Slart. There is humour in there. I like it. 

Stop being a patronising twat.

It's the truth. You are fully entitled to the analysis you put forward and seem to wish to prolong. Clearly this is something you feel strongly about. Why you do is none of my business. Your arguments though rehash the same points without taking into account the points, opinions and standpoints of others. This is not a debate you, or anyone else here, can win. My tip to you is to lighten up. You did so successfully through your use of humour. That's neither condescending nor patronising, it's accurate. 

[antrin]

SMCC SAID:  "seems to me that most of these "613 commandments" apply only to those who follow the Jewish faith!"

Christians accept the Word of the Lord.  In its entirety, surely?

Ye cannae pick and choose and ignore the early works cos they don't suit your own peccadillos...

He wisnae gaunie repeat all the warnings already outlined in his first book.  Such repetition would piss off his fans.. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by antrin

[antrin]

Or... her/she   etc...

 

Apologies for any offence.

[St.Ricky]

5 minutes ago, antrin said:

Or... her/she   etc...

 

Apologies for any offence.

You are getting a bit fed up with this thread and it's quasi intellectual dissection of the "evidence" I suspect. 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

I respect their right to think differently and to cone to different conclusions. I don't have to respect the way they think or the conclusions crush come to.

Criticising someone's beliefs is not the same as criticising the person, although a lot of people take it that way when they are being criticised. Anyone, even the most intelligent, can hold stupid beliefs. The secret is to, as I've said already, re-evaluate your beliefs when presented with new evidence.

Also, even if a belief you have turns out to be true, it doesn't mean that you had a good reason to hold it. I could believe that the Buds will win the Champions League with 5 years. Is there a good reason to hold that belief - no. However, a multi-billionaire could stick all his money into the Buds next week and we could very well win it within 5 years. Just because my belief turned out to be true does not mean that I had a good reason to hold it in the first place, being before the sugar daddy was known about.

 

I like your final paragraph. If that happened then you would inadvertently have proof that there is a god and he is smiling on St Mirren. 

Happy posting Slart. 

[antrin]

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Also, even if a belief you have turns out to be true, it doesn't mean that you had a good reason to hold it. I could believe that the Buds will win the Champions League with 5 years. Is there a good reason to hold that belief - no. However, a multi-billionaire could stick all his money into the Buds next week and we could very well win it within 5 years. Just because my belief turned out to be true does not mean that I had a good reason to hold it in the first place, being before the sugar daddy was known about.

 

 

6 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I like your final paragraph. If that happened then you would inadvertently have proof that there is a god and he is smiling on St Mirren. 

Happy posting Slart. 

The events in that final paragraph of Slarti's helps point out the veneer of flimflammery involved in all belief systems.

If a multi billionaire did achieve such a goal, then it would no longer be the Buddies.  And I would no longer be a fan.  The money - as evidenced in other threads - is not a faith to which I subscribe.

 

This is/should be a sport, I believe, played on a level playing field.

 

I know... "I believe".  Huh.  Might as well believe in a tooth fairy. 

 

But your quote shows me where you're coming from Ricky.    £ = god. 

Money winning a league would be proof of god.   You have a belief system that I have no wish to emulate. 

 

[St.Ricky]

10 minutes ago, antrin said:

 

The events in that final paragraph of Slarti's helps point out the veneer of flimflammery involved in all belief systems.

If a multi billionaire did achieve such a goal, then it would no longer be the Buddies.  And I would no longer be a fan.  The money - as evidenced in other threads - is not a faith to which I subscribe.

 

This is/should be a sport, I believe, played on a level playing field.

 

I know... "I believe".  Huh.  Might as well believe in a tooth fairy. 

 

But your quote shows me where you're coming from Ricky.    £ = god. 

Money winning a league would be proof of god.   You have a belief system that I have no wish to emulate. 

 

Too simple - I have never made being wealthy a goal of mine. I do believe that rather than talking the talk, people should be walking the walk.  The 3 religious groups are all abrahamic in origin with the Jewish faith the oldest. The Christian faith and then Islam as the most recent "revision". At their best, all worthy, at their worst, lamentable but I think that had little to do with the precepts and a lot to do with combining state and religious power. A dangerous mixture. Just reading a book about Western influences on the Islamic world. Fascinating. 

[St.Ricky]

45 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

59 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I like your final paragraph. If that happened then you would inadvertently have proof that there is a god and he is smiling on St Mirren. 
Happy posting Slart. 

No, it would mean that I had a "lucky guess".

Better Slarti. Much better.

Personally, I kind of like feeling like the poor relation to the big two. Gives us a lot to moan about. Always popular down Paisley way. 

I'd hate to have a Jim Weir benefactor. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by St.Ricky

[Doakes]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Everyone who classes themselves as a christian should know and adhere to all 613 commandments. After all, they are COMMANDMENTS, not suggestions, and therefore it is not an extreme narrative. If you are allowed to pick and choose what to adhere to then you could, theoretically, have someone who claims to be a christian who doesn't believe that god is real.

The slippery slope was a reference to having false beliefs making you more susceptible to other false claims. The conspiracy theorists was just an example/analogy.

I don't think that I've said that all religions are conspiracy theories, or implied it. In spite of that how would not believing any religion to be true be "not doing a very good job of practicing what you preach" in respect of believing false claims. Everyone evaluates claims in relation to past claims, either accepted or rejected. If you look at some claim and come to the conclusion that it is false (or true) then you are more likely to come to the same conclusion about similar claims, because you have already done the ground work. For example, the christian bible claims that the universe and everything in it was created in six days. I don't believe that as ALL the evidence points to that not being the case. This means that I can rule out islam and judaism for the same reason, I don't have to go and evaluate it all again. It is a central tenet of all three religions and dismissing it for one means it can be dismissed for the others. Then dismissing the claims of the dirt man and rib woman, the talking serpent, that plants existed before the sun etc, it builds up a body of evidence that the book continually makes false claims. I'm not trying to claim that the authors of the book were lying, just that they didn't know what they were talking about. I'm quite sure that if they were around now, with all the modern science and discoveries they wouldn't be writing things like that or that stars can fall and land on earth - saying that just demonstrates that you have no idea what a star really is or that most if the "stars" we can see in the night sky are actually whole galaxies and not stars at all. Again, I'm not blaming the authors, they didn't have the information at the time. So conspiracy theory - not to begin with - used to control - again, not to begin with, but now, absolutely.

All beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be evaluated in the light of new evidence. Go to the conclusion that the evidence leads to, do not lead the evidence to a predetermined conclusion. If I was to be presented with enough good evidence for the existence of the biblical god then I would believe in him. I still wouldn't worship him as he is a moral thug.

 

Again, you're choosing to take a religious text as a literal version of events. Many would argue that the Bible is an allegorical collection of stories. Does anyone really believe that there was a talking serpent? Or a burning bush that doesn't actually burn? 

We seem to be focusing heavily on the Bible but I'd wager that most religions have information you could pick holes in, when taken literally... That doesn't mean the story itself doesn't contain truth. 

If you look at one of the most famous Bible stories, Jesus being resurrected, that same story has been repeated many times, with different characters. Harry Potter for example, after voldemort killed him.. (spoiler alert)

It's probably meant as allegory for hope/never giving up, even in your darkest, most hopeless seeming moments.

Anyway, I don't think we're ever going to agree.  Decent debate though! Enjoyed that.

[Tommy]

This thread is the perfect example of why I never talk about religion   

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, Tommy said:

This thread is the perfect example of why I never talk about religion   

Tommy. 

 

[beyond our ken]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:21 AM, antrin said:

It’s perhaps a frivolous flippant attempt to counteract a couple of thousand years worth of misinformation?

I could accept that if they weren't so diligent in the way they research and consult on how to propagate their message.  Quite honestly, we should leave people to follow any belief system they want to and rely on the laws of the land to weed out any undesirable behaviours.

 

Some people are daft enough to listen to Mike Pence, some are daft enough to listen to Slarti.  Even if you wipe out religion you wont wipe out stupidity

[munoz]

 

[Tommy]

Talk about what?

Canna mind now [emoji16]

[smcc]

3 hours ago, antrin said:

SMCC SAID:  "seems to me that most of these "613 commandments" apply only to those who follow the Jewish faith!"

Christians accept the Word of the Lord.  In its entirety, surely?

Ye cannae pick and choose and ignore the early works cos they don't suit your own peccadillos...

He wisnae gaunie repeat all the warnings already outlined in his first book.  Such repetition would piss off his fans.. 

 

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Why? Which ones? What determines which commandments apply and which don't? Personal choice? They wouldn't be commandments then, just suggestions. 

Anyway, christianity is just a jewish sect, as is islam.

 

 

 

Far too many to mention. I will, however, give a few examples:-

162. Not to marry non-Jews.

420. To be seen at the temple on Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.

579. Not to deviate from the word of the Sanhedrin.

591. Appoint a king from Israel.

601. Not to dwell permanently in Egypt.

Presumably, according to your logic, these can only be suggestions.

Edited August 15, 2019 by smcc

[shull]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

This thread is the perfect example of why I never talk about religion   

Me too. 

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, shull said:

Me too. 

Bigot in chief! 

And doesn't see it. 

Amazing

[antrin]

2 hours ago, smcc said:

 

Far too many to mention. I will, however, give a few examples:-

162. Not to marry non-Jews.

420. To be seen at the temple on Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.

579. Not to deviate from the word of the Sanhedrin.

591. Appoint a king from Israel.

601. Not to dwell permanently in Egypt.

Presumably, according to your logic, these can only be suggestions.

You have a fair point...

I'd never considered that the god who wrote the first bit would have had - as a heavenly plan - that there would be multiple schisms in his followers and worshippers for which s/he need create addendums as they misunderstood him/her!  Or perhaps earlier followers just didnae measure up...

So presumably either the Christians or the preceding Jews have been made in NOT quite his/her image?

(No to mention those in the variety of civilisations and worshipping practices that developed in other parts of the world)

You would think that an all-seeing god might have all-seen and got her/his book right, first time.

 

(please apply your preferred lgbqt+ possessive if either - or both - her or his seems inappropriate for your god.)

Edited August 15, 2019 by antrin
I was slipshod...

[Sweeper07]

On 8/14/2019 at 12:31 PM, Slartibartfast said:

Maybe because it leads people to be science deniers, start/continue armed conflicts and generally take actions that have negative effects on others. It's bad enough when it's just Joe Bloggs spouting off to to those around him, it's even worse when these people are actually in positions of power - like US Vice President Mike Pence who is a YEC and Evolution denier - as these people have influence over many, many more people.

It's not so much about changing people's minds, it's about getting them to actually use their minds to critically evaluate the things that they believe, whether that be religious beliefs or some other belief. Get them to look at evidence and draw their own conclusions, rather than just believing authoritative figures who, in the main, have their own agenda to push.

Yeah and when "religion" is banned the results are always fabulous - All equal except those in power and loads of people locked up and killed for not WORSHIPPING the tyrannic dynasty or leader Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot , Communism or whatever name it goes by . . . China, Russia, etc. etc.

Democracy is underpinned by moral rules taken from the Bible... Our nation has wandered off quite a bit and the result has been a shrinking British Empire and greatly diminishing "our power" in the world, lower morality and worse evil in society etc. etc. 

It is hard to get folk to be critical when they have CLOSED MINDS !

There is a better way, but when people are so adamant they are right, when they are WRONG, it is just sad  - I know you think that true of people like me, but all will be revealed when this life is over... don't moan that God did not try to tell you otherwise once your chance to do proper critically evaluated investigation is over...

You can begin from a position of ignorance and learn, but going to other folk who are ignorant about the one true God will never help anyone...

IT is still not too late... but time is running out... You can get an invite to the best party ever, or you can claim you don't want to go because you don't believe that there is a party...

Don't moan that a God of love excludes anyone - people exclude themselves by their choices and beliefs . . .