I believe in life after death in so much as my cells will break down and continue the "life/death" cycle within other organisms. "We are stardust. Billion year old carbon. We are golden." - from Woodstock by Joni Mitchell
This is the way most Romanticists view the "afterlife".
Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.
Belief in Heaven, Reincarnation, Karma, etc... are all systems that work as a way to help keep people civilized in the absence of law. Does that make any sense?
If you're only behaving because you're afraid of divine retribution, then you're not really behaving at all. The shit-bag bully who is good around Christmas to please Santa is still a shit-bag bully at heart.
If you're only behaving because you're afraid of divine retribution, then you're not really behaving at all. The shit-bag bully who is good around Christmas to please Santa is still a shit-bag bully at heart.
True, but that is the way I see people who are bastards in private life and then so good in public. It's like the old Bill Cosby joke, "your grandparents are not the same people who raised me. They are old now and trying to get into heaven!"
If Christianity did not make up Heaven and instead says everyone is going to Hell no matter what, do you think there would be as many Christians today?
It's like Santa clause and little kids. The little kid believes that Santa is watching and thus they behave better lest they go without gifts.
I think kids should be taught about choices, consequences, and empathy to teach them moral and safe behaviors. Santa Clause was just a fun tradition, not a reward/punishment system. I mean what average, nominally Christian kid ever got nothing or a lump of coal for bad behavior at Christmas?
It's like Santa clause and little kids. The little kid believes that Santa is watching and thus they behave better lest they go without gifts.
I think kids should be taught about choices, consequences, and empathy to teach them moral and safe behaviors. Santa Clause was just a fun tradition, not a reward/punishment system. I mean what average, nominally Christian kid ever got nothing or a lump of coal for bad behavior at Christmas?
None that I know of but, how many parents play the "Santa is watching" card to insure good behavior from their kids?
It's like Santa clause and little kids. The little kid believes that Santa is watching and thus they behave better lest they go without gifts.
I think kids should be taught about choices, consequences, and empathy to teach them moral and safe behaviors. Santa Clause was just a fun tradition, not a reward/punishment system. I mean what average, nominally Christian kid ever got nothing or a lump of coal for bad behavior at Christmas?
None that I know of but, how many parents play the "Santa is watching" card to insure good behavior from their kids?
Sometimes those parents are just tired. Other times both the parents and the kids both know that there is no Santa Clause and the kid simply understands it for what it is, a threat.
Precisely, these people were not true believers either. If you really believed god was real, if you really believe the book was magical, you wouldn't dare change it or second guess it because the stakes would be so ludicrously high. Let me tell you, if there really were a god, and it really had a book, I would follow that book to the letter. That is unless I could find some way to do battle with the god.
This is actually a naive way of looking at the early Christian church. Those who read the earliest books of what we now call the New Testament didn't believe what we modern Christians now believe. Their world view and religious knowledge was based in Judaism, Gnoisticism, Mithraism and other mystery religions plus a mix of Greek and Egyptian beliefs.
All evidence (and I'm talking about what is found in the manuscripts, not tradition and dogma promoted by the later Catholic Church) points to Christianity being similar in many ways to these religions at its origin. Read the letters of Paul (or those credited to Paul) which are the earliest books and you'll find no talk Jesus as a real person doing real miracles. Why not? Because in 40 CE nobody thought Jesus actually existed. Or they did, but not in a physical plane with the rest of us. I'd go into more examples but there would be too many.
What I'm getting at is you really can't say what people believed of didn't believe. They may have believed God was real but he really was telling them to change the book. They may have believed that when Jesus mentioned "burning in Hell" he was talking about a rubbish dump on near Jerusalem called Hell where they burnt unclean things. They may have seen Revelations as a propaganda hit against Nero and Rome but framed in a way that looks like a retelling of Old Testament apocalyptic writings. Some people also say that Jesus was a code name for a type of drug that was used in the private ceremonies of the early church.
You can't take todays standards and world views and apply them to people 2000 years ago in a different culture. They probably didn't even have the same concept of believing something as opposed to not believing. Or had a completely different view of what knowledge was and what could be known.
Sometimes those parents are just tired. Other times both the parents and the kids both know that there is no Santa Clause and the kid simply understands it for what it is, a threat.
If someone is too tried to consistantly teach their kids decent moral/ethical codes and to think for themselves, then they need to quit some of their other actiovities or give their children up for adoption. Other than keeping kids physically and mentally sound, isn't that the most important aspect of being a parent?
Those that base their moral philosophy on being punished or rewarded in the afterlife are morally bereft and intellectually lazy. Moreover, these people's votes count just as much as my own, and that is terrifying. I do not want my legal code written based on any-one's religious beliefs.
As to the discussion on religion: Most modern religions are rooted in the traditions and beliefs of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Sometimes those parents are just tired. Other times both the parents and the kids both know that there is no Santa Clause and the kid simply understands it for what it is, a threat.
If someone is too tried to consistantly teach their kids decent moral/ethical codes and to think for themselves, then they need to quit some of their other actiovities or give their children up for adoption. Other than keeping kids physically and mentally sound, isn't that the most important aspect of being a parent?
You can't take todays standards and world views and apply them to people 2000 years ago in a different culture. They probably didn't even have the same concept of believing something as opposed to not believing. Or had a completely different view of what knowledge was and what could be known.
While it is all very interesting to look at the history of what people believed, it really isn't very relevant to the point we are making. The vast majority of so-called religious people in the US today are not fundamentalists. To be fundamentalist is to be crazy, and I think we all understand why. If you are not fundamentalist, it is basically impossible to arrive at a set of non-contradictory non-atheist beliefs. Every single religious belief that any human holds has a well known, and well understood, secular origin. What those secular origins where does not remove the dilemma of fundamentalism vs. hypocrisy that non-atheists face.
Sometimes those parents are just tired. Other times both the parents and the kids both know that there is no Santa Clause and the kid simply understands it for what it is, a threat.
If someone is too tried to consistantly teach their kids decent moral/ethical codes and to think for themselves, then they need to quit some of their other actiovities or give their children up for adoption. Other than keeping kids physically and mentally sound, isn't that the most important aspect of being a parent?
Do you have kids?
No, but my mother raised me as single mom working 3 jobs for the majority of my formative years. If she could do it on no money and little time, no one else has an excuse. EDIT: No one else has an excuse other than physical, mental, or major social handicap.
Part of the process kids go through in becoming adults involves finding out where the boundaries are. After dealing with kids pushing your buttons all day long you will be tired. You will also find yourself doing the things you promised you would never do to your own kids just to get a few minutes of quiet.
Some kids are better than others while some kids are always right up your ass all day long. The scariest words your kids can say are "I'm bored."
To borrow a joke from Bill Cosby, "Dad's don't want justice, they want quiet."
Part of the process kids go through in becoming adults involves finding out where the boundaries are. After dealing with kids pushing your buttons all day long you will be tired. You will also find yourself doing the things you promised you would never do to your own kids just to get a few minutes of quiet.
Yeah, just like all the old guys on FNPL saying that we'll all get married and drift apart and live bleh old man lives like the rest of you.
Even harder that convincing a religious person there is no god is convincing someone that the mistakes they made in their life were avoidable.
Part of the process kids go through in becoming adults involves finding out where the boundaries are. After dealing with kids pushing your buttons all day long you will be tired. You will also find yourself doing the things you promised you would never do to your own kids just to get a few minutes of quiet.
Some kids are better than others while some kids are always right up your ass all day long. The scariest words your kids can say are "I'm bored."
to borrow a joke from Bill Cosby, "Dad's don't want justice, they want quiet."
Teaching kids about consequences and empathy isn't something you do in a day. If people are relying on religion and Santa Clause to teach them moral and safe behaviours, then what happens when the kid realized that God and Santa Clause don't exist? If someone is consistently just trying to shut their kid up, rather than interact with them, they should not have kids.
Teaching kids about consequences and empathy isn't something you do in a day. If people are relying on religion and Santa Clause to teach them moral and safe behaviours, then what happens when the kid realized that God and Santa Clause don't exist? If someone is consistently just trying to shut their kid up, rather than interact with them, they should not have kids.
True. In my experience the "Santa Clause" line is only used when other lines fail. A little kid can grasp "Be good = Santa brings toys" much easier than anything else. Sometimes it backfires and you end up with a panic stricken kid who will not use the bathroom because she thinks Santa is some sort of pedophile that is always watching her.
You can't reason with kids until they are adults. Any attempt to do so is seen by the parent as reasoning and by the kid as a challenge to figure out a way around.
Parent: If you drive the car while I am gone this weekend you will be grounded. Kid translation: So, if I let my friend drive the car I will not get grounded!
Yes Scott, everything becomes more clear once you are married and have kids. EVERYTHING.
You can't reason with kids until they are adults. Any attempt to do so is seen by the parent as reasoning and by the kid as a challenge to figure out a way around.
You most certainly can reason with children. Just don't talk to them like they are idiots. Teaching consequences can be used with simple examples for children. Sure, kids will act up sometimes, no kid is perfect - but to set ground rules for behavior is easy. If you choose to do A, then there are the natural consequences of B, C, D, and E.
Parent: If you or your friends take the car out without my permission, you could kill yourself, you could kill others, I will call the police and report the car stolen, I will not bail you out, you will lose all driving privileges until you are 18, you will not be allowed to venture out of the house except to attend your classes until you have proven yourself responsible. Moreover, if you prove yourself responsible, I will go with you on your 16th birthday to get your driver's license, I will help pay for a safe car and car insurance if possible, I will allow you have later curfews (or no curfews at all - I didn't have any curfews after I was 14), and I will not restrict your access to your friends and extra-curricular activities.
Kid: Obviously I get more if I am responsible, so I will be responsible the majority of the time.
I believe in life after death in so much as my cells will break down and continue the "life/death" cycle within other organisms. "We are stardust. Billion year old carbon. We are golden." - from Woodstock by Joni Mitchell
This is the way most Romanticists view the "afterlife".
That sounds a little too rational to be from a romanticist. They wanted to epic-ify everything.
That is unless I could find some way to do battle with the god.
I can just see Scott rearing back to throw a war hammer of Thor proportions at a light in the clouds from a mountaintop.
You can't take todays standards and world views and apply them to people 2000 years ago in a different culture. They probably didn't even have the same concept of believing something as opposed to not believing. Or had a completely different view of what knowledge was and what could be known.
While it is all very interesting to look at the history of what people believed, it really isn't very relevant to the point we are making. The vast majority of so-called religious people in the US today are not fundamentalists. To be fundamentalist is to be crazy, and I think we all understand why. If you are not fundamentalist, it is basically impossible to arrive at a set of non-contradictory non-atheist beliefs. Every single religious belief that any human holds has a well known, and well understood, secular origin. What those secular origins where does not remove the dilemma of fundamentalism vs. hypocrisy that non-atheists face.
All I did was bring up a point that there has never been a single set of views that one can be fundamental about and used an example from the first century CE. You then made a judgment on the beliefs of those people in the first century. I was just saying there is almost no way to know what they believed or how they believed or what kind of value they even placed on the concept of belief itself. My point was more to contrast the situation of 2000 years ago and today and point out that your claims about their beliefs are unfounded and naive. They were different people than today, don't ascribe similar motives and world views, they likely won't stick.
I believe in life after death in so much as my cells will break down and continue the "life/death" cycle within other organisms. "We are stardust. Billion year old carbon. We are golden." - from Woodstock by Joni Mitchell
This is the way most Romanticists view the "afterlife".
That sounds a little too rational to be from a romanticist. They wanted to epic-ify everything.
Read Clive Barker (yeah, Clive Barker), William Blake (specifically the marriage of heaven and hell), etc... it is all there. EDIT: It should read Romantics, not Romanticists.
You can't take todays standards and world views and apply them to people 2000 years ago in a different culture. They probably didn't even have the same concept of believing something as opposed to not believing. Or had a completely different view of what knowledge was and what could be known.
While it is all very interesting to look at the history of what people believed, it really isn't very relevant to the point we are making. The vast majority of so-called religious people in the US today are not fundamentalists. To be fundamentalist is to be crazy, and I think we all understand why. If you are not fundamentalist, it is basically impossible to arrive at a set of non-contradictory non-atheist beliefs. Every single religious belief that any human holds has a well known, and well understood, secular origin. What those secular origins where does not remove the dilemma of fundamentalism vs. hypocrisy that non-atheists face.
All I did was bring up a point that there has never been a single set of views that one can be fundamental about and used an example from the first century CE. You then made a judgment on the beliefs of those people in the first century. I was just saying there is almost no way to know what they believed or how they believed or what kind of value they even placed on the concept of belief itself. My point was more to contrast the situation of 2000 years ago and today and point out that your claims about their beliefs are unfounded and naive. They were different people than today, don't ascribe similar motives and world views, they likely won't stick.
Did I say something about what people believed 200 years ago? I'm pretty sure I've just been talking about the nature of belief in general.
Sigh. But then how do you know what details are true and what are not? What are your heuristics on filtering the Bible? Who are you to say THE WORD OF GOD is just a metaphor or a detail to be skipped over?
Might this work? There's also its older brothers hermeneutics and exegesis. If you're not especially good at this sort of thing personally and are suspicious of relying on the opinions of those who say they are, I supose you could always just do your best and hope that divine grace will bail you out if you really screw up somehow.
No man! You're interpretation of that scripture is totally wrong! See, in the original language the phrase that was translated to "observe to do it" actually means something a little different. It doesn't mean "observe to do it" or "see it gets done". It means, "do it, if you see fit".
I grew up in a Christian culture where people interpreted the bible as a way to justify their actions and attitudes, rather than letting the bible influence their actions and attitudes. Your parody, Scott, is exactly how things happened -- and people lived and died on whether they could convince others of their ideas. It was a religion of winning by interpretation, not love.
Definitely a problem, and an old one at that. It even has its own dusty antique Greek term. Yet another reason why it's important for individuals to take responsibility for their own critical thinking. Unless you're a Scientologist or something, chances are your holy scriptures weren't originally written in modern English. If you don't know the ancient languages that your scriptures were originally recorded in, you're really at the mercy of your translators and interpreters. If any of them are biased, well...
Also, Scott's post on atheists and the afterlife? Very well done.
Did I say something about what people believed 200 years ago? I'm pretty sure I've just been talking about the nature of belief in general.
I gave an example of something written in the bible around the first century CE. You replied directly to my example saying:
"Precisely, these people were not true believers either."
I think we can only be agnostic on the beliefs of the people who wrote the epistles and revelations. My point was that even when it was written there was no such thing as a single narrative or message of the New Testament in which one could be fundamental. You turned my point into a point about belief in general. My whole point was that you can't generally say anything about the type of belief people have today and the type of belief people had 2000 years ago.
As an example; today we have a pretty well defined concept of what history is and what it isn't. Did people who lived on the edge of the Mediterranean have the same concept? Did they believe that Hercules was a historical figure or not? Did they have a concept where they knew he wasn't historical in a physical sense but believed he was real on another plane of existence and actually carried out his tasks? This pre-scientific world view might have made perfect sense to them, and someone else might have had the same kind of belief about Jesus and his trip to hell. But today it is impossible to reconcile such views with the known data, or at least far, far harder. Maybe back then changing the word of God wasn't a sign that you weren't a believer but that you actually had a revelation from God for yourself and in your view that was just as valid as the message some other holy man had written 20 years before you. In today's world of copyright and a sense that the original author has the final say on the manuscript we don't think like that.... but 2000 years ago people thought very differently.
I don't think we can talk about beliefs in general, and I've provided a lot of examples to show that this thought isn't just a belief but a notion actually founded in evidence.
Comments
This is the way most Romanticists view the "afterlife".
All evidence (and I'm talking about what is found in the manuscripts, not tradition and dogma promoted by the later Catholic Church) points to Christianity being similar in many ways to these religions at its origin. Read the letters of Paul (or those credited to Paul) which are the earliest books and you'll find no talk Jesus as a real person doing real miracles. Why not? Because in 40 CE nobody thought Jesus actually existed. Or they did, but not in a physical plane with the rest of us. I'd go into more examples but there would be too many.
What I'm getting at is you really can't say what people believed of didn't believe. They may have believed God was real but he really was telling them to change the book. They may have believed that when Jesus mentioned "burning in Hell" he was talking about a rubbish dump on near Jerusalem called Hell where they burnt unclean things. They may have seen Revelations as a propaganda hit against Nero and Rome but framed in a way that looks like a retelling of Old Testament apocalyptic writings. Some people also say that Jesus was a code name for a type of drug that was used in the private ceremonies of the early church.
You can't take todays standards and world views and apply them to people 2000 years ago in a different culture. They probably didn't even have the same concept of believing something as opposed to not believing. Or had a completely different view of what knowledge was and what could be known.
Those that base their moral philosophy on being punished or rewarded in the afterlife are morally bereft and intellectually lazy. Moreover, these people's votes count just as much as my own, and that is terrifying. I do not want my legal code written based on any-one's religious beliefs.
As to the discussion on religion: Most modern religions are rooted in the traditions and beliefs of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Some kids are better than others while some kids are always right up your ass all day long. The scariest words your kids can say are "I'm bored."
To borrow a joke from Bill Cosby, "Dad's don't want justice, they want quiet."
Even harder that convincing a religious person there is no god is convincing someone that the mistakes they made in their life were avoidable.
You can't reason with kids until they are adults. Any attempt to do so is seen by the parent as reasoning and by the kid as a challenge to figure out a way around.
Parent: If you drive the car while I am gone this weekend you will be grounded.
Kid translation: So, if I let my friend drive the car I will not get grounded!
Yes Scott, everything becomes more clear once you are married and have kids. EVERYTHING.
Parent: If you or your friends take the car out without my permission, you could kill yourself, you could kill others, I will call the police and report the car stolen, I will not bail you out, you will lose all driving privileges until you are 18, you will not be allowed to venture out of the house except to attend your classes until you have proven yourself responsible. Moreover, if you prove yourself responsible, I will go with you on your 16th birthday to get your driver's license, I will help pay for a safe car and car insurance if possible, I will allow you have later curfews (or no curfews at all - I didn't have any curfews after I was 14), and I will not restrict your access to your friends and extra-curricular activities.
Kid: Obviously I get more if I am responsible, so I will be responsible the majority of the time.
Also, Scott's post on atheists and the afterlife? Very well done.
"Precisely, these people were not true believers either."
I think we can only be agnostic on the beliefs of the people who wrote the epistles and revelations. My point was that even when it was written there was no such thing as a single narrative or message of the New Testament in which one could be fundamental. You turned my point into a point about belief in general. My whole point was that you can't generally say anything about the type of belief people have today and the type of belief people had 2000 years ago.
As an example; today we have a pretty well defined concept of what history is and what it isn't. Did people who lived on the edge of the Mediterranean have the same concept? Did they believe that Hercules was a historical figure or not? Did they have a concept where they knew he wasn't historical in a physical sense but believed he was real on another plane of existence and actually carried out his tasks? This pre-scientific world view might have made perfect sense to them, and someone else might have had the same kind of belief about Jesus and his trip to hell. But today it is impossible to reconcile such views with the known data, or at least far, far harder. Maybe back then changing the word of God wasn't a sign that you weren't a believer but that you actually had a revelation from God for yourself and in your view that was just as valid as the message some other holy man had written 20 years before you. In today's world of copyright and a sense that the original author has the final say on the manuscript we don't think like that.... but 2000 years ago people thought very differently.
I don't think we can talk about beliefs in general, and I've provided a lot of examples to show that this thought isn't just a belief but a notion actually founded in evidence.