Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 330 by Joe1950]

Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"?

I don't think very many people would say that.

I have to agree that this is the case with a lot of people. I also think that people would get board with it after a few thousand years, and perhaps even sooner.

At present there are scientists working on prolonging human life indefinitely. This is a serious pursuit and well invested in.

You think that people would really get bored after a few thousand years or sooner? How could anyone be bored with living? It's either live or don't live. There is no end to what we can learn, so how could a person get bored? Look at the technology we have. Isn't it exciting to think that technology will get even more interesting?

You bring out the fact that scientists are working on prolonging human life. Why do you make that point if you think that people will be bored with indefinitely extended life? It seems, really, that people don't want to stop living on this earth, and are looking to prolong life so that we don't necessarily die. You say that this pursuit is "well invested in." Then longer life can't be thought of as boring, can it?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 337 by JehovahsWitness]


[center]

Oh right.. we forget that some people don't ask questions.[/center]

So are you under the impression that, rather being and unmerited gift, you somehow have the right to choose what God offers you?

If I don't have a choice, it's not MUCH of a gift, now is it?
It's more like a SENTENCE.

Bible believing Christians understand that anything God kindly offers we don't deserve and if, in his mercy and undeserved kindess

This is a horrible aspect of certain Christian beliefs.. the idea that humans are somehow wicked, undeserving, sinful, just plain BAD.

Ugh.

He offers everlasting life, we would do well not to tell him, we want somthing "better".

Mind slaves don't question their master.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 338 by Joe1950]



[center]Two atheists toe to paw... fur flying everywhere[/center]

Oh. So THAT's how you are!

I are what I are.
Quite bizarre.. check the avatar...

I have not figured out how to clip parts of quotes so I will just try to respond to a few points.

Trust your OCD..
I do.

I might not make great points, but boy, do I ever [font=Verdana]FORMAT.[/font]

When I say I am a "pragmatist" I do not mean a fully developed field of philosophy. Just that I am practical. Maybe A "practicalist" would be a better term, maybe not.
But, since we are picking nits, how about this. Can you be BOTH an atheist and a skeptic?

Yeppers.
The opposite of "skeptic" is "gullible".

We don't have to be gullible to be atheists.

Doesn't the philosophy of skepticism take the position that knowledge is never attainable fully. In that case, wouldn't you be an agnostic?

Ahhh.. right.

Words aren't perfect, and the word "skeptic" has more than one usage. Sorry about that.

So, when I use the word "skeptic" I mean someone who uses the thinking method called "skepticism" which is identical to "critical thinking".. but you see.. I'm lazy. The word "skepticism" is shorter to type.

I know what you mean though... words.. yuk.

I think you are talking about what is known as a "knowledge skeptic"... and I am fully aware of the irony. I'd prefer a better shorter word for "sound reasoning"... Most people don't Google... I HATE when they do.

So, sometimes, I have to define the term "skeptic".. in fact, I do that quite a lot.
Try this:

http://www.skeptic.com/

_____________________

For the record:

I believe that it's possible for me to know stuff.

______________________

I would think that a skeptic would not be concerned with using the right tool for the job, but would instead question the very idea of using any tool?

Yeah I know.. that use of the word seems stupid ... Maybe something akin to solipsism. Stupid. I don't mean that usage at all.. I mean a "reliable method of thinking". To be a bit more technical, I would say "a pragmatically useful epistemology". ... so maybe my skepticism comes FROM my pragmatism...

Hmm
Did I just make your point?

Perhaps even the idea of doing the job in the first place! But my knowledge on the subject is superficial, but good enough to get by (practicalist).

One step at a time.
You did well.

You did well to look it up for yourself, ( skepticism at work, yo ) you did well to challenge me ( more skepticism ).. where do I send your skepticism medal?

( only $9.99 plus shipping, handling, tips and taxes where applicable )

My point in regard to the idea of a "fact" is that we cannot seem to agree with our religious friends as to what constitutes a "fact".

Yep.. I'm calling that "religious English" vs "secular English".

Like you, I consider verifiability a key component. They do not . (At least outside of a Holy Book).

I don't at all agree.
Sorry.

They do.
Oh BOY do they do.

Have you ever heard of "faith healing" and " my personal relationship with Jesus"?
Ever heard of "miracle"?

Out of the Bible into their hearts, yo.

As I stated , any EXPLANATION of the world must be based on evidence.

Hmmmm.
I'd like to agree.

I just cant.
Not the way you put it, I can't.

Must be?
Why must it be?

I never implied that we cannot use the world if we do not understand it.

Sorry if I implied that you implied it.
Got it.

For example, the automobile. I would estimate that that 99% of the people who use cars (myself included) would not be able to explain HOW they work in any detail.

Ah.. now you are being loose about the use of "understand" .There are LEVELS and different kinds of understanding. An expert at driving need NOT understand the physics or the chemistry. He might just "feel it"... In his bones, if you will.

I feel things in my "bones" all the time.
Male cats.. whataryagonna do?

Because I cannot explain the theory or the operation does not make a car any less useful to me. I don't need that information. I can use the world without explaining it. (Practicalist)

A whole lot of religious folks are practicalists that way, don't you think?

When you say you "trust a book" what you are really implying, I think, is that you trust the EXPERTISE that went into writing the book.

Right.

I have no choice but to trust the experts.
Sometimes, I am deceived.

A skeptic is aware that experts are not perfect.
So mistakes should be expected as they are often received.

You understand that there is a large amount of scientific study, etc. that went into the book. you are not really trusting a book JUST because it is a book. You trust Dawkins because he has the qualifications and cites sources in his works. He does not claim divine inspiration.

Right.
And even RD can make mistakes.

I did one of those in the summer of '73

This differs from the Holy Books . The only "expertise" involved in them is their own claim to be the word of god. That is a book of a different color.

We agree.
Divine inspiration is claimed for most religious copy.

Do organized religions really "work"? Define your terms . What does "work" mean? BLAST!

A pragmatist has to ask for the definition of the word "work"?

Ok.. I usually use the common English dictionary meanings to words. If I don't, I know well enough to define my terms. I preach that message all the time in here.

By "it works" I mean the method used reaches it's intended goal.
When I'm famished, a pizza works for me, especially if it has the anchovy.

Religions reach many many goals.

People are happy, connected, less fearful, more fearful, guilty, assuaged of their guilt, hopeful, paying the preachers a whole lot of money, political power, personal gain.. love, people get charity, better health, magical healing, divine intervention, morality, poetry, beauty, architecture, intellectually, spiritually, musically, there is even smells like incense. and drugs like Peyote woo hoo.. you name it.. Religions work for people on OH so many levels.

But of course, this is what the religious people claim.

I'm an outsider to all of this.. there are some aspects of religions that I heartily support. There are other aspects that I happen to despise.

I criticize the bad parts, of course.
No use in simply agreeing with the good parts.

Now.. is BINGO a good part or a bad part?
Haven't decided yet.

Like any organization I would suggest that organized religion is beneficial and harmful.

I agree.
Organizations are full of mostly fallible people.

And the harm it has caused on the personal, psychological, political spheres far outweigh the benefits.

I might agree ( kinda, mostly? ) with that assessment. In any case, I agree with that for MYSELF. When it comes to politics, then yeah.. more than just me. Honestly, right now, if it wasn't for religious interfering in politics, I would be focusing on my music software issues instead of spending hours upon hours doing this. People don't understand why I "waste" so much of my time in here.

Some people might even prefer if I were to VAMOOSE out of here.. do that Cheshire cat move.. and disappear leaving a smile.

And that is an objective FACT that I can demonstrate with evidence.
Hard cold facts, yo.

( Yo Yo meow )

Religion has not been beneficial to millions.

I tend to shy away from such sweeping generalities.. they are hard to demonstrate.
You know.. evidence? I suggest way more modest claims at first.

[onewithhim]

Blast, what are the aspects of religions that you support, and what are those that you despise?

[Joe1950]

Religion has not been beneficial to millions.

Is this a sweeping generality? yes. Can it be supported by evidence? I think so.

The Bible (to any extent it can be believed) has multiple examples of genocides, plagues, murders and violence done to people in the name of Yahweh.

Throughout history Christians have executed people, had Inquisitions, destroyed entire cultures in Africa and the Americas in the name of Christianity.Millions of Native Americans were slaughtered and their cultures all but destroyed in the name of Christ. In Europe multiple wars have been fought over the years after the Protestant Reformation. Christians on both sides committed atrocities. Scientists were executed in the name of Christ.

Islam spread by the sword. By murder and/or intimidation infidels were treated horribly. The Crusades, a religious war between Christians and Moslems, led to the deaths of many.

In more recent times religious wars in Ireland and the Balkans continued the trend. the Taliban's persecution of unbelievers is very recent.

Hinduism also has a long history of repression. Not only war fare, but in the treatment of lower castes, all justified by religion.

I could go on and on. But I won't.

So, yes, I WILL make the generalization that religion has not been beneficial to millions. The evidence clearly points to that.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 345 by Joe1950]

There is no denying that false religion has been a curse on humanity; the bible speaks of false religion as a blood thirst whore, called "Babylon the Great" and honest hearted people will do nothing but rejoice when she is destroyed. True religion however has lifted people up, the teachings of Christ remain the gold standard of higher thinking and as with all truth, true religion benefits all who adhere to it.

I am one of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

"A man's greatness can be measured by what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him. By this test Jesus stands first." - HG Wells

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 345 by Joe1950]

There is no denying that false religion has been a curse on humanity; the bible speaks of false religion as a blood thirst whore, called "Babylon the Great" and honest hearted people will do nothing but rejoice when she is destroyed. True religion however has lifted people up, the teachings of Christ remain the gold standard of higher thinking and as with all truth, true religion benefits all who adhere to it.

I am one of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

"A man's greatness can be measured by what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him. By this test Jesus stands first." - HG Wells

OK. So how do you justify the extreme violence done to people in the name of Jehovah in the Old Testament? Did the women and children of the Midianites deserve to be slaughtered? On what basis? Did the men, women and children living in the land of milk and honey deserve to be slaughtered and displaced by the wandering tribe of Jews?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 347 by Joe1950]


War against evil extremists is not bad, opposing bad is a righteous justifiable act. Indeed when good men do nothing to stop evil they are to an extent responsible for it.

The condemned Cannanite nations were extremely repugnant and their existence as a people an affront to humanity. Individuals were given the opportunity to surrender and keep living, but once the nations made it clear they were not going to surrender, Joshua (The Israelite leading General) was justifiably instructed to wipe them out.

I did write a post on the above earlier, you may have missed it so here is the link
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 946#825946

• The nation could not be spared because of dependent children but being a Divine war their lives can eventually be restored if God in the future sees fit.

JW


Note: It should be noted that while the Isrelates under Joshua did represent pure worship that was not always the case.



Did the women and children of the Midianites deserve to be slaughtered?

Yes

On what basis?

On the basis that God judged them instrumental in the death of 24,000 men.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 344 by onewithhim]

Blast, what are the aspects of religions that you support, and what are those that you despise?

That's an excellent question!


I think we might want to start a whole thread about that...

_________________

The good:

I think that many atheists find lots and lots of good things about religions.
There are many many, I think that people are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

I will make a short list:

1. I think the main thing is the social network. That's amazing. It's great. It's needed.
The world needs social networks. Religion does that the best. Got to hand it to religion.
2. Come on, lets face it, people just want to be peaceful and happy and good and loving. All religions insist on that. The ones who do not.. are truly exceptional. Those are the bad guys, in my book.
3. Religions really do help people. Especially the weak and the poor. That's an important job.

Ok, those are three huge honking good things about religions.. I'm sure there are more.
_______________


On the other hand,

The bad:

I think that many atheists find lots and lots of bad things about religions.
There are a few, I think that people are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

1. That social network.. sometimes its a bit of a jail sentence. Some just can't get OUT if they don't like it. They risk losing their loved ones, their jobs, and no joke, some risk losing their LIVES. Not good for poor folk. Not good for people who love their folks but don't happen to LIKE their religion. Not good for people who would like to switch religions and stay alive. The social network can be a double edged sword. Some people use the cutting edge more than others.
2. People do want to be happy and good and so on... I don't happen to think that religions offer the best methods. Most big religions have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The moral philosophy they represent might be a tad.. OUT OF DATE. And the science, the psychology? ... Oh come on ... we can do way better than that. Modern people don't NEED superstitions any longer.
3. Secular charities actually do more good than the religious ones. It's just that the religious charities have two big feet in every door. Religions ARE everywhere... there are way fewer secular charitable organizations, because there are fewer secular people. But a secular charity doesn't have to spend ONE DIME or ONE PRECIOUS SECOND of work on religious propaganda.

4. Oh, and all the killing and the anti-democratic interference in politics that CERTAIN religions support. We can't pretend that isn't going on RIGHT NOW.

I know I cheated a bit by putting one more bad thing than my good list..
I'm too lazy right now to go back and add a forth nice thing up there.. How about the Bingo and the art?

Those are great.


P.S.

If you would like to discuss the pros and cons of religions, I suggest we start a new thread. In fact, I might just go ahead and start one, if there is any interest.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 345 by Joe1950]

Religion has not been beneficial to millions.
Is this a sweeping generality? yes.

Good.. we agree on the sweeping nature of your claim.
Now, you will need evidence that religion has not been beneficial to millions.

Can it be supported by evidence? I think so.

You might be right.

The Bible (to any extent it can be believed) has multiple examples of genocides, plagues, murders and violence done to people in the name of Yahweh.

I agree.
But that's irrelevant to your claim.

Throughout history Christians have executed people, had Inquisitions, destroyed entire cultures in Africa and the Americas in the name of Christianity.Millions of Native Americans were slaughtered and their cultures all but destroyed in the name of Christ. In Europe multiple wars have been fought over the years after the Protestant Reformation. Christians on both sides committed atrocities. Scientists were executed in the name of Christ.

Agree.

Possibly millions have died in the name of religions. It's completely irrelevant... You claimed that religions are NOT beneficial. You would have to demonstrate that they aren't. You are presenting good evidence that possibly millions of people have perished by way of religion, but no evidence yet that millions haven't benefited. I fully agree ( I think it would be silly to think otherwise ) that religions have caused a lot of damage to people.

But you said that millions have not benefited from religions.
You have not provided any evidence of that.

By the way, I think you have given yourself an impossible task.
There are billions of religious people out there.. I'd be surprised if a few millions would NOT think religion is beneficial to their lives.

Perhaps you should consider re-writing your claim.

So, yes, I WILL make the generalization that religion has not been beneficial to millions. The evidence clearly points to that.

I think you are still making the same mistake.
And it seems by your defense, I can see why.

You are only thinking of the negative aspects of religions, and NOT thinking about any benefit.

For example, what about the millions of people who have benefited from religious charity?.. Doesn't count for a benefit to millions?

You are only looking on the negative side.
You forgot to consider any BENEFICIAL side.

You seem to think they don't even exist.
Ooops.

Don't fall into denying bits of reality that don't fit into your case.