patrick.net

marcus says

I was going to cite threads of yours, but I only see threads from the last week or so. Not sure what going on with that.

In any case, I'm sure you're a nice guy thunderlips, and I like you, and think you are intelligent, it's just...well I think I've already explained as best I can.

Well, if certain topics send you to the moon, well I guess I've had days like that myself. I suppose we've been there/done that enough I'll pass on any future commentary along those existential experience lines. I'm more interested in the historicity of Prophets and Gods anyway.

And yeah, I know what you mean about previous threads. I was trying to find some old threads on religion and while I can find them in comment search, I couldn't open them.

curious2 says

It might be Marcus using two accounts.

Nah, it's another poster, not Marcus, with whom I thought there was mutual agreement about most things, or at least some shared concerns.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of ignore, for me, I save it for truly ignorant or irksome posters, like those who write in all CAPS or who can't spell. Can't say I've used it on this forum, yet.

CaptainShuddup says

I'll never understand the pettiness of SOME people on this board.

True. And curious2 is beyond petty. The guy has a raging boner for me and can't stop thinking about me, which is flattering, although then again, he is such a sad pathetic little person that truth be told I would prefer that he find some other ways to channel his emotional problems.

Also, I'm not gay, so at the same time, it does sort of gross me out.

gracer says

God is no longer counting sins against mankind, except for unbelief in Christ, which cannot be forgiven because, like a law of physics, belief (faith) in Christ is necessary for eternal life.

Ok now that you bring science into it, where is the proof??

curious2 says

Another possibility:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

gracer says

so that is why i believe. it's good news that God is not counting my sins against me, and that i can have eternal life by simple faith.

See comment #1 (ego, lack of accountability): "As an added bonus, being God means they are superior and immortal, and that all of their actions (no matter how evil) are God's will. That bonus is particularly useful if you want to make a name for yourself by flying an airplane into a building. No need to feel sorry...."

marcus says

curious2 is....

For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote. It was Sunday, I guess that's his Fun Day. Today's Monday, back to math class:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78252508@N05/7269250694/

Alas Marcus pretends to be, of all things, a math teacher. I suspect Marcus may be a plant to bring disrepute upon teachers and the teachers union:

marcus says

[Prop 30] is a waste. We all know that it probably all goes right in to the pockets of those union bosses.

(For actual information about Prop 30, you can read the SJ Mercury News.)

Some people want to believe because it's easier than studying, calculating, and reasoning. If the question is the square root of 361, it's easier to pick a number and believe rather than calculating. Validating that feeling of ease may build self-esteem like in the Simpsons' parody math class. The Simpsons characters are expressly parodies though, they don't pretend to be real.

curious2 says

For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote.

Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!" It all comes down to his emotional maturity level, that of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.

Dan8267 says

Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!"

And because of that, what might otherwise be a brief kerfluffle becomes a permanent division. He rejects reason, insists that his feelings are the only valid ones, and then locks them in permanently. I saw an interesting program on crows recently, they are surprisingly intelligent for birds, can even recognize and hold a grudge against specific people for up to two years. So, likening Marcus to a two-year-old throwing a tantrum may be apt, but it would be a two-year-old bird. In this regard, Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion: they find it more comfortable to join an unthinking community with pre-defined enemies (Satan, infidels) rather than evaluate individual behavior.

curious2 says

Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion...

Sorry, but this is a non-sense. "Believing in religion" is like "believing in believes". Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?

BTW, I'd like to share this: http://marinatheterrible.tumblr.com/post/34358970061/i-am-not-a-democrat-i-am-not-a-republican-i-am-a?og=1&fb_action_ids=10151150544874755&fb_action_types=tumblr-feed%3Apost&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151150544874755%22%3A473174459393911%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151150544874755%22%3A%22tumblr-feed%3Apost%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

michaelsch says

BTW, I'd like to share this

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

michaelsch says

Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?

I have no fear of mentioning God, whether your particular version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other, although I recognize that Jehovah's Witnesses and certain Jewish sects are prohibited from saying or even writing "God". (This is one reason why injecting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s caused immediate division, resulting in a Supreme Court case saying kids can't be required to say that, which may be one reason why religious fundamentalists crusade against "activist judges.") But, I tend to refer to religion rather than any one god, because I don't see a reason to take sides. To refer to "God" the way you do seems to presuppose the existence and validity of exactly one, perhaps Jehovah, while in other contexts it would refer to Allah. I don't fear any of the gods or their names, but their adherents do cause me some concern, especially Muslims and Morons.

Dan8267 says

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

Actually the reason I didn't click on his link is it seems to include some sort of tracking code. Since you work in that field, I'd be very curious to know what you think about it, and whether tinyurl might actually conceal such codes.

michaelsch says

BTW, I'd like to share this

I am a Christian, and as a Christian there are certain things which I believe to be moral and others that I believe to be immoral. What I DO NOT believe in is alienating those who have differing beliefs and trying to force my moral beliefs onto them through laws. If one definition of the “moral choice” was meant to be the only option, human beings would not have been created with free will. I do not believe it is my job as a Christian to push certain causes. I do believe that it is my task to love those on both sides of the issues, whether their definition of “right” aligns with mine or not.

1. Everyone has a sense of morality and moral beliefs. Being a Christian is irrelevant. I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.

2. I agree that morality should not be forced upon others by law. I'd even go further as to say that morality should not even affect laws. However, rights should determine laws and rights and morality sometimes overlap. For example, it isn't illegal to murder a person because it's immoral to do so, although clearly it is immoral. It's illegal to murder a person because you are violating his right to live. Rights serve as the basis of all laws including environmental ones.

3. Human beings weren't created with free will, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. There's already a thread for that. Check under religion. In any case, the concept of free will, meaningless as it is, should have no bearing on the practicality or theory of law, rights, and deterrence.

4. There is nothing wrong with "pushing" certain causes as long as the cause is just and the way you are pushing it is as well. I push for social justice, responsible management of resources, and civil and human rights, and rational thinking. I push quite strongly for these causes, pissing off quite a few people on this site. But I always "push" ethically and genuinely. I never deceive or try to trick someone into accepting my argument as I believe reasons are more important than conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with a Christian pushing for a just cause, but I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion. Of course, those who believe that faith is a virtual would have to disagree with me. I personally consider faith to be a vice.

5. One can passionately disagree with another person without hating that person or thinking that person is an idiot, especially if one accepts the principle that reasons are more important than conclusions. For example, I could disagree on economic issues with another rationalist simply because our priorities are different. I may value stability more than opportunity, and the other rationalist might hold the opposite value. Nevertheless, as long as we're both rational, neither one of us will despise the other person.

As for love, that is simply an emotion and therefore neither a prerequisite for interacting with others or necessarily helpful. One can be cooperative with others without experiencing the emotion of platonic love, and to say that one loves everybody is simply a lie and it cheapens the meaning of the word. The human brain simply does not behave like that. One can act compassionately towards everyone in the world, but that's an entirely different thing. I can certainly be compassionate and help another person in distress without being emotionally involved with that individual.

Dan8267 says

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

Oops, did not think about this.

Dan8267 says

But I always "push" ethically and genuinely.

No offence, but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.

Dan8267 says

I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.

I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.

Dan8267 says

As for love, that is simply an emotion...

Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own (including your emotions) for the sake of someone or something else. I know for sure that's what this girl meant in her post, and since you took it from the post of that girl it would be only intelectually honest to use words in the sense she uses them.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion

I would like to see your definition of the term "just". I'm used to the meaning from Psalter, but I suspect yours may be way different.

Oh, there is also one used in the games theory. It's extremely subjective. A player considers a game just, when he has a strategy to end it with a positive profit. No fixed sum game may be just for all players. Materialist games are usually fixed sum games.

Would you clarify what you call just in this case?

BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.

One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause. Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.

I have endless number of such examples.

michaelsch says

Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.

One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause.

That is a very interesting example, and in fact senior officers within the American military argued the same point at the time. People who lived through that era told me, "It was a desperate war." I think the war accomplished a mix of results, some just (e.g., ending the Holocaust and Occupation) and others not (e.g., Soviet conquest of eastern Europe). I would point to other examples from other wars (e.g. Andersonville) to show that wars are like fires: however just the original merits of the cause may have been, the context of war can quickly devolve into unjust means. Yet, some have pointed to precisely that WWII example as a moment when America's moral compass seemed to lose some of its bearing.

Returning to the original topic though, it reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. When people are presented with a difficult question, they tend to substitute an easier question instead. It happens all the time when asking people to guess at likelihoods, because statistics are hard; people tend to answer based on the ease of recalling familiar examples, which is often a predictably wrong answer. The question of what is just, in the context of occupied Europe and the Holocaust, is difficult. With so many people getting killed and maimed, and a Treasury unable to sustain the war effort much longer, what is the least unjust result? That is a hard question. Asking instead, "What does our religion say," may be an easier question, but ease doesn't make it a better question or even an adequate substitute.

michaelsch says

but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.

Then change your interpretation of reality to reflect actual reality. Nothing I can do about communication errors on your end.

michaelsch says

I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.

When I have time, I'll write about how moral systems should be structured.

michaelsch says

Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own

You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.

Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.

Emotion

an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.

The willingness to sacrifice oneself for another may be the result of an emotion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. In fact, the entire purpose of emotions is to elicit certain behaviors in animals in response to certain situations.

We can model emotions, confirm their existence in various species, and even age them, i.e. determine when they evolved.

michaelsch says

I would like to see your definition of the term "just".

I believe I used the term social justice rather than justice, which mean different things, but I'll define both in a reasonable way. I personally don't believe in nit-picking on definitions as nomenclature is not important, ideas are.

Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.

Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.

Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles

1. Rights not privileges. All persons have the same exact rights and no person has any privileges.
2. Truth before agendas. The truth may never be covered "for the greater good".
3. Transparency in all government.
4. Equality of opportunity, the lack of a class or caste system, removal of barriers to entry including the use of money and power to stifle competition of businesses, politics, or ideas.
5. Preservation of public resources including the air, land, sea, and biodiversity of the planet.
6. Structuring systems such that the self-interests of individuals complement rather than compete with the interests of society as a whole.
7. Elimination of parasitic behavior, rent-seeking, and economic hostage taking.
8. Emphasis on sustainability and efficiency rather than exploitation and short-term wealth generation.

Now, you are going to get a lot more variance in what people consider to "social justice" to be, especially because most people who use that term are artsy-fartsy types. I, however, am not.

michaelsch says

BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.

Of course if one uses evil to accomplish a good goal, the evil more often than not outweighs the good. However, that does not mean there are just and unjust goals. Here's a simple counter-example that shows the flaw in your statements.

Consider one and only one means: pushing a button. Now hook up the effect of that button to one of two outcomes. In scenario one, pushing the button will release a puppy that is tied to railroad tracks, saving the puppy's life. In scenario two, pushing the button will drop a puppy onto the railroad tracks as a train is coming, killing the puppy.

Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios, one can easily see that the goal of saving the puppy is just and the goal of killing the puppy is unjust even though the means are exactly the same and thus must be either both just, unjust, or neutral.

Clearly then, a goal in itself can be just or unjust. Again, do not confuse this conclusion with the entirely different statement that the ends justify the means.

michaelsch says

Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.

On that we agree. I've always held Truman to be a war criminal.

Of course, if you want to deal with real moral dilemmas, consider the following.

There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button? Do you murder Hitler in order to save millions of other lives, innocent ones?

Second scenario... This time the button kills Hitler's mom when she was a little girl. Do you still push the button? Do you kill an innocent girl to prevent her from giving birth to a genocidal maniac? What if the button killed Hitler's grandmother or great-great-great-great grandmother?

Dan8267 says

You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.

Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.

As I already pointed out, your argument is intellectually dishonest, because you took the word "love" out of the context and interpret it in a way different from the way the author of the text you discuss used it.

Dan8267 says

Given that a person making the decision of whether or not to push the button knows the outcome in both scenarios

This is the most misleading assumption in real life situations.

There's a button before you. If you push it, Hitler will have died of a heart attack before coming to power and the Holocaust will not have happened. No other effects will occur. Do you push the button?

My answer is "no"! The rest of your hypothetic scenario is obsolete.

Dan8267 says

Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.

Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.

I wonder why anyone would care about this?
Especially puzzling why do you care about it?

Dan8267 says

Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles

Well, you define social justice in details. But why do you think it is good?

Socially unjust systems may become today way more efficient than socially just ones. What's wrong about them? Assuming you have a chance to get into a social elite, why would you oppose such a system? Please try to avoid joggling synonyms, like just is fair or equal.

Well, I will tell you why, since you do not reply. It's because your believes come out of Christian humanism. Yes, however pervert and stripped of their roots they are still by-product of the Christianity.

gracer says

is that making sense?

No.

Gracer,
I can't accept your picture.

First of all you describe Jesus Christ as some kind of a tool. That's may be in line with the Calvinist doctrine, but it disagrees with the traditional Church teaching, that Christ is a person with free will, who has a full authority to decide at his judgment whom he likes to stay with him and whom he does not want to accept.

The most ancient Church reading on the matter consists of a parable about the ultimate Christ judgement recorded in Matthew 25:31-46. It says nothing about "a belief in Christ" or about being destined to 'hell'. The judgment is done exclusively on the basis of ones love of his neighbor. (Of course, the love in the sense Church uses it, not on the basis of Dan's "emotion".)

Well, let me cite it, though the translation i've found is far from ideal.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

michaelsch says

Gracer,
I can't accept your picture.

Neither can I.

While I have defended believers around here on many occasions, the belief that "only by accepting Jesus" can one go to heaven, and that if there is a God, "he" would say that this is more important than your actions and how you treat others,....is on its face illogical and ridiculous.

Dogma that is only designed to increase the size and power of a religion is not interesting to me. Further more, I believe that the real Jesus would be deeply offended that such things were said in his name.

michaelsch says

your argument is intellectually dishonest

Disagree with me all you want, but if you call me dishonest you're either a liar or a fool. There is nothing I write that isn't what I honestly believe to be true and accurate. Even if I'm wrong, I'm at least honestly wrong.

And I stand by what I said. Love is an emotion, not some mystical force. It has no supernatural powers.

michaelsch says

This is the most misleading assumption in real life situations.

1. Your statement is meaningless since this is simply a thought experiment and has no analog "in real life".
2. Even if there were analogs and most of them involved the impossibility of knowing what the button did, this would be irrelevant to this thought experiment. The purpose of the experiment is to think about the morality of the decision, the means, and the goals given full knowledge.

You are simply trying to avoid answering the questions. If you have no answer because you cannot figure out how to satisfactory address the dilemma, then simply have the honesty to say, "I don't know.". That's a perfectly acceptable answer. If you gave such an answer, you could proceed to listening to other answers and evaluating them. If you simply ignore the question and pretend it doesn't exist, you close off the possibility of deepening your understanding of morality by studying the dilemma.

However, your response does illustrate why the Bible is so god-awful at presenting a moral framework. The Bible was written for simple-minded, illiterate buffoons who could not possibly deal with difficult moral dilemmas and imperfect options. As such, all morality in the Bible has to be two-dimensional.

This is yet another critical reason to abandon religion and embrace modern thought, mathematics, and reasoning as the basis of morality. The modern world is simply too complicated and intertwined to apply childish morality, and it's only going to get even more complicated as we have to deal with things like

- intelligent non-human life on Earth (dolphins, chimps, etc.)
- intelligent extraterrestrial life including lifeforms without technology
- sentient artificial life
- humans who replace their organic brains with synthetic neural nets

Now that might sound like science fiction to you, but science fiction has a tendency to become scientific fact. Eventually, humanity is going to have to deal with these things and others far more alien to us, and Bronzed Age morality isn't going to work.

Don't ignore the dilemma I presented because it's hard to deal with. Address the dilemma precisely because it's hard.

michaelsch says

My answer is "no"! The rest of your hypothetic scenario is obsolete.

Obsolete?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk

In any case, by choosing not to push the button, you have chosen to allow the Holocaust to happen. So let's add another scenario. This time, if you push the button, you save Hitler's life and cause the Holocaust. If you do not push the button, Hitler dies as he would have in the previous scenario if you had pushed the button. Do you push the button now?

Hint: If you are really smart, you'll understand that this question is essentially the same as the previous one. If you had answered "no" before, then an honest answer would now be "yes". Conversely, a previous "yes" is equivalent to a "no" in this scenario. Answering both scenarios, which are essentially mirror images, is simply an inconsistency reflecting a lack of understanding of the question. The point is that the decision is what's important, not whether that decision is executed by action or inaction.

michaelsch says

I wonder why anyone would care about this?
Especially puzzling why do you care about it?

Because it affects how government is ran, what laws are created, what wars are fought, how business is conducted, the quality of medical care you receive, etc.

michaelsch says

Well, I will tell you why, since you do not reply. It's because your believes come out of Christian humanism. Yes, however pervert and stripped of their roots they are still by-product of the Christianity.

Whoa, first off, just because I don't reply the minute you post something, doesn't mean I'm avoiding the question. I do have a day job. It's not like I spend every second of my life on patrick.net.

Second, I can assure you that my moral beliefs and principles are not based on Christian mythology or brain-washing. Christianity certainly has no monopoly on the principles I hold or any principle accepted by people in general. If anything, the history of Christianity shows the practice of rejecting the principles Christians claim to have. The most evangelical of Christians in our country are also the ones most supportive of the death penalty, a clear violation of both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill" and the New Testament "Turn the other cheek, do good to those who hurt you, love your enemies" dribble.

michaelsch says

Well, you define social justice in details. But why do you think it is good?

Principles are a kind of opinion. They cannot be justified as "good" or "evil" but simply are either accepted or rejected. One cannot prove that it is evil to drown puppies. Once simply accepts this premise.

However, one can most certainly determine through reasoning, simulation, or models how a set of principles, if accepted and incorporated into culture or government, will affect society. Although principles are essentially assumptions, they are not arbitrary and they have determinable effects.

For example, the principle that one does not kill other members of ones species/tribe/nation/clan/troop/community is pretty much essential for social living and the very tangible benefits that come from social living such as resource sharing, safety in numbers, collective defense, distribution of work, etc. As such, it should not be surprising that humans and other species that live in social communities have a taboo about killing others within the community. It makes evolutionary sense. Now spiders and other solitary creatures might have a significantly different sense of morality.

There are tangible benefits to social justice including
- decrease war
- decrease poverty
- decrease violent crime (the number 1 cause of violent crime is poverty)
- better education
- better economics due to all of the above

And that's just to name a few things. Ultimately, seeking social justice maximizes long-term benefits at the cost of short-term ones, and I consider that a good trade-off.

michaelsch says

Socially unjust systems may become today way more efficient than socially just ones. What's wrong about them? Assuming you have a chance to get into a social elite, why would you oppose such a system?

1. As socially unjust systems are typically so because they trade off society's long-term interests for an individual's short-term interests, they are almost by definition inefficient.

2. What's wrong with socially unjust systems is that they harm many individuals. In fact, they do more harm to their victims than they benefit their benefactors. The total happiness displacement is always heavily negative.

3. I often support changes that aren't in my person self-interest but are in the better long-term interest of the world. For example, I support a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions and pay for either carbon sequestering or clean energy technology. Doing so is clearly not in my selfish interests as I will pay more for gas and electricity, but I'm unlikely to see the real benefits in my lifetime. However, I still support such a tax because it will benefit future generations not yet even born. I like the idea of leaving the world a better place than I found it, but hey, that's just me.

gracer says

there are forces of the universe at work that make hell a certainty for an unbeliever in Christ, unless that person becomes immunized by faith in Christ.

Nothing about the Christian afterlife myth makes sense and there is no way to square that circle. God is just but whether or not you burn for all eternity is determined by whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, which in turn is determined almost completely by what society you are born into. If you were born to Christian parents, you'll probably go to heaven. But if you were born Muslim or Hindu, you're fucked. An accident of birth determines whether or not you will suffer for all eternity, and the Christian god is supposed to be just?

A man and a woman gets married. The man dies. Later the woman marries another man. Eventually they both die. Isn't that going to be awkward in the afterlife? Even Jesus pussied away from addressing this dilemma. The inescapable conclusion is that human beings simply cannot experience permanent bliss because we have conflicting interests. Take away those interests, and we are no longer who we are. Sorry, but the human mind simply cannot handle paradise. The Matrix proved that.

michaelsch says

Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

Which is why anyone who actually believed in the alleged teachings of Christ would not have wanted Osama bin Laden killed or prosecuted for 9/11. A true Christian would have forgiven Osama and offered an olive branch, or in the least, accepted the olive branch Osama offered after 9/11. Hell, I'm an atheist and I think the wiser path would have been to make peace with Osama, admit both sides did evil things, bury the hatchet, and work together to end violence. It would have made the world a much safer place than simply killing him. However, the vast majority of Christians disagree with me and Christ.

Dan8267 says

In any case, by choosing not to push the button, you have chosen to allow the Holocaust to happen.

Dan,
1. all your questions are based on the assumption one knows the exact outcome of ones actions. It is a wrong assumption;
2. by introducing such a button you change the world and nothing would happen in the same way it happened in the history we live in;
3. you use a token word of Holocaust as an absolute evil, however it was created after WW2 by the winners and with the purpose to justify their own crimes. Just imagine Hitler winning WW2, we probably would call Holocaust the persecution and murder of millions of Russians and Ukrainians by the Jewish communists.

Dan8267 says

would not have wanted Osama bin Laden killed or prosecuted for 9/11. A true Christian would have forgiven Osama and offered an olive branch,

Forgiving Osama bin Laden as a person does not exclude a need to persecute him for his crime. But we also need to remember that he was a creature of CIA and his murder looks more like a cover up operation than an attempt to persecute him. Maybe I'm wrong, but until I see all materials published and all officials investigated for their role in 9/11, especially members of the Bush administration, I have no reason for changing my opinion.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

your argument is intellectually dishonest

Disagree with me all you want, but if you call me dishonest you're either a liar or a fool.

Hey, don't you see a difference between calling ones argument intellectually dishonest and and calling a person dishonest?
Dan8267 says

Nothing about the Christian afterlife myth makes sense and there is no way to square that circle. God is just but whether or not you burn for all eternity is determined by whether or not you accept Jesus as your savior, which in turn is determined almost completely by what society you are born into.

Frankly I'm getting tired of your arguments. You beat a straw man to death and think you hit Christian believes. Christianity does not have any afterlife myth. It is about eternal life, not the "after"- or "before"-life.

Maybe heaven and hell only allude to the quality of life you will have have here in this life. THe rewards for being a good person are subtle and hard to explain to a child or to the typical ignorant person. So this idea of heaven and hell is there for those who can't understand how their actions, behavior, and attitude can make their lives a heaven or a hell.

And maybe in some different way of comprehending time, this life is an eternity.

gracer says

God saw a need to save mankind from hell

Unlike Dan, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the current state of the world would be better or worse if Christianity had never existed. But I think it's safe to say it would be different.

Jesus' crucifixion did impact the actual existence of Christianity, regardless of whether your interpretation of why he was crucified is met.

gracer says

if there is no hell or separation from God in the afterlife,

gracer, Christian crede says:

"I look for the resurection of the dead and the life of the new world (or sometimes translated as the age to come)."

st. John the Teologian calls it "New heaven and new earth." I think it's obvious we talk about the new space and new time here.

"Afterlife" you use is quite misleading.

As of the hell, there is an ancient parable about it:

Hell is like a room with a long table with all kind of good food. People are sitting at that table and try to get the food but can't bend their arms. They are struggling and starving there.

So, what is Heaven?
Heaven is like a room with a long table with all kind of good food. People are sitting at that table and can't bend their arms...

So they feed one another.

michaelsch says

all your questions are based on the assumption one knows the exact outcome of ones actions. It is a wrong assumption;

The questions about the thought experiment may do so because that is the premise of the thought experiment. A thought experiment does not have to reflect the complexities of realities in order to gain insight on the subject of the experiment.

Don't let that stop you from attempting to answer the questions as best you can. The mere exercise of attempting to address the dilemmas will reveal more about the nature of morality than any holy book.

michaelsch says

Forgiving Osama bin Laden as a person does not exclude a need to persecute him for his crime.

One cannot take vengeance or punish a person after forgiving him, by definition. To do so is to not forgive the person.

Who ever said forgiving was supposed to be easy? But if you really believe in the alleged teachings of Jesus Christ, it's a no-brainer. Osama bin Laden should not have been killed or prosecuted, but rather unconditionally forgiven.

I understand that the Christian right want to have it both ways, but its a contradiction. You can't satisfy blood lust and follow Jesus's teachings. Clearly, most Christians are just into the mythology and authoritarianism, not the real morality.

michaelsch says

Hey, don't you see a difference between calling ones argument intellectually dishonest and and calling a person dishonest?

To make a dishonest argument is to be dishonest. Lying to yourself is still lying.

Of course, some people disagree with me on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn_PSJsl0LQ

michaelsch says

You beat a straw man to death and think you hit Christian believes. Christianity does not have any afterlife myth. It is about eternal life, not the "after"- or "before"-life

You think I'm making a Straw Man argument because Christian religions teach there is "eternal" life instead of an "after" life? Well, that's some semantic gymnastics you're doing.

Hey, I may be an atheist now, but I spent 18 years going to a Christian church, attending Christian schools, being taught by nuns and Christian brothers. I know Christian mythology.

Call it what you want, Christian mythology is that after you die, you go to heaven or hell (or purgatory in some sects, or limbo in Catholicism until recently). And after purgatory/limbo, you eventually end in heaven. So you live in heaven or hell for all eternity after death. It's pretty clear on that. In fact, the fear of hell and the carrot of heaven is pretty much the entire motive to stay in line and obey the church, which speaks for god.

Now if you don't want to call that an afterlife, fine. I don't care about nomenclature. But the bottom line is that neither heaven nor hell makes jack shit sense. There is nothing a human being can possibly do to deserve an eternity of suffering. Nor is there any way human beings could have perfect bliss for all eternity and still be the person they are now. Eternal bliss would be like a fake, crack high.