If there is a Hell, I WANT to be there.

[aaqucnaona]

I probably understand by this term something quite different than you.
I would think it refers to the 'deterioration of religion' or something like that, not to 'ridicule of religion.'

Debasement means "alteration, adultration or reduction of something".

Like I said -
If you'd be really concerned about issues of heaven and hell, you'd also look into what other religions have to say about it, and not just limit yourself ot the Abrahamic ones.

Ok.

I think one can only hope to understand others by addressing one's own issues first.

Solving others' problems is the fastest way to solve your own. the same goes for understanding. You also gain some perspective.
Just so I may know, what do you refer to when you say "issues"? For me its just the qualms against religious extremism.

 

[The Esotericist]

aaqucnaona, were you, like, raised in a really religious housed hold or something? Like private religious education? Fundamentalist upbringing and all that? Maybe CCD or something?

 

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona,

As you all know, I am an agnostic [Existence of God] atheistic [belief in God]apatheist [importance of religion]. However, if the theists are right and there is a hell, I want, absolutely want to go there. Now some [especially JAN] will scream "Satanist" at this point so let me tell you, you [Jan] actually gave me this idea.

You're an irresponsible fool.
And I say that in all seriousness.

First of all, I cannot, for a second, imagine my self even the slightest comfort and happiness even if I were WITH GOD and/or in Heaven knowing that a stupid IDEA was the deciding point between blessing or torture for all eternity. I do not want to be with a God that cares more for the thoughts of a person than for his actions, one who accepts abortion doctor killers and rejects great scientists. I could never enjoy even the most greatest and unimaginable blessings in the world knowing that fellow individuals of my species are suffering,not for a fine time because of their finite crimes, but for infinty for a mere thought.

There are people here, including myself, who are trying to give you another side to your idea of what/who God is, and the essentials of Godly-religion. But here you are, doggedly, dogmatically, sticking to this idiotic notion of what and who God is.

Second, I also am not enthusiastic of sharing a place with evangelicals, creationtist, terrorists and pedophiles.

Are you frikkin kidding me?


The rest of your post is bunk.
In fact, it's all bunk, but I thought I'd say something in the hope that when you grow up, there may still be memories of these conversations, which hopefully, will bring you to your senses. Because you don't know wtf you're talking about. Thought experiment or not.


jan.

 

[aaqucnaona]

jan.

@Jan

By the burden of rejoinder, I must either agree or argue. After reading your post, I am forced to admit that I cannot argue and I am in the wrong. This is a poorly thought, hastly whimsical, irresponsible and un-professional thread. My arguments are illogical or inadequate or hastily generalised. I should not have posted this unless I had refined my points and made sensible, unbaised, non-prejudiced and courteous arguments. I am sorry, and I apologise to you and anyone else who reads this. Thank you point out my mistake in this thread and calling a spade a spade. You have just proven sciforums to be a good place for discussion, where bad arguments like this are examined and discarded - and so it must be. So MODERATORS, please delete this thread.

Thank you. I have done my part, by recognising and accepting my mistake, apoligising and retracting my OP [requesting deletion]. Please do not consider the OP to represent my actual, real views - this OP was nothing more that stupidity, naivty, illogic and bad judgement on my part.

This is why I love this place.

Here you go -

 

[wellwisher]

Aaqucnaona how can you be so sure that Satan is not worse than God? If god is not actin they way you wish him to act, what makes you think Satan will do your bidding as you want?

In the old Testament, Satan was in the council of God. Satan is not thrown from heaven until the book of Revelations. The relationship of God and Satan is evident in the book of JOB, where Satan has a lot of influence with God, convincing God to test JOB, which God does.

Book of Job;

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

God was doing good but takes the council of Satan to heart and tests Job by doing evil to him. All through the old Testament Satan is giving bad advice.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Aaqucnaona how can you be so sure that Satan is not worse than God? If god is not actin they way you wish him to act, what makes you think Satan will do your bidding as you want?

In the old Testament, Satan was in the council of God. Satan is not thrown from heaven until the book of Revelations. The relationship of God and Satan is evident in the book of JOB, where Satan has a lot of influence with God, convincing God to test JOB, which God does.

Book of Job;


God was doing good but takes the council of Satan to heart and tests Job by doing evil to him. All through the old Testament Satan is giving bad advice.

I have already retracted my OP, so this isn't a thought experiment anymore. So God and Satan, if to be considered epistemically as you suggest, must first be proven.

 

[Balerion]

Lol. I couldn't think of a better way to conivce you of my lack of belief or fear.

Really? That's troubling.

For this thread, yes - because that is the Hell I am talking about. But in my general threads on this topic, no -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111277
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111812
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111847
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111921
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

I don't care what you've done in other threads. I'm concerned about this thread.

I hold this stance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

No you don't. If you wanted to hang your hat on one of these ridiculous and superfluous terms, you'd be an agnostic theist. More on that later...

I am not - I dont believe in that God and such a God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Then you'd be an atheist. But this contradicts a statement you make later in the post.

Of course. But my agnosticism is limited to ONLY the present knowledge of God. Epistemically, I am a gnostic - we can and will know God someday.

So you believe there is a god to be known! You can't be an atheist or an agnostic then. You're a gnostic.

See what I mean about hedging bets? You claim to be an atheist, an agnostic, and now a gnostic. Only one can be true, and from you latest admission, you're a gnostic.

Of course not. The only difference is whether or not there is a opposite claim made.
Strong a-ballist - You say - I have a football. I say - No you dont.
Weak a-ballist - You say - I have a football. I say - I do not believe you.

These are the same concept, just said different ways. If you say "No you don't," then you're saying I do not have the ball. If you say "I do not believe you," you're still saying I do not have the ball.

Surely a perfect heaven should have the freedom to mourn, to be unhappy and to be sad? We might not do those things in such a heaven, but surely we must be capable of them for the heaven to be a perfect place? Heaven cannot be a puppet show with grinning puppets unable to have the free will or freedom to feel sadness, grief and nostalgia.

Says who? I mean, if you want to invent your own religion based on your gnostic faith, feel free, but we don't know what the heaven of your invention looks like, so until you lay out the parameters entirely, your question is unanswerable.

I mean it is the only sensible theological construct as it proposes finite punishment for finite transgressions.

Yet you see no problem with an infinite reward for finite goodness?

There is no such thing as a sensible theological construct. The idea of a utopian afterlife is childish. There's no reason to believe anything like it exists. And what would the purpose of this life be if the afterlife was the goal? What, just to divvy up teams? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[dumb dude]

"Strength is life; weakness is death"
As I don't want to die, I believe in hope and don't like negativity. Atheist are too much negative and that is often suicidal. They enjoy to be cynical but it's just a pretext for doing nothing. Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta prove something in my science lab", it's just a positive state of mind which is essential for life to move on. So, I would rather want to be in the heaven. At least I love myself

 

[wynn]

Solving others' problems is the fastest way to solve your own.

So if you have a cavity in your tooth, the best thing to do is make sure that someone else gets a filling?

 

[aaqucnaona]

So if you have a cavity in your tooth, the best thing to do is make sure that someone else gets a filling?

non sequitur - you know that is not what the context was - we are talking philosophy and psychology, not medicine.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Strength is life; weakness is death"
As I don't want to die, I believe in hope and don't like negativity. Atheist are too much negative and that is often suicidal. They enjoy to be cynical but it's just a pretext for doing nothing. Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta prove something in my science lab", it's just a positive state of mind which is essential for life to move on. So, I would rather want to be in the heaven. At least I love myself

Good points.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

"Strength is life; weakness is death"
As I don't want to die, I believe in hope and don't like negativity. Atheist are too much negative and that is often suicidal. They enjoy to be cynical but it's just a pretext for doing nothing. Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta prove something in my science lab", it's just a positive state of mind which is essential for life to move on. So, I would rather want to be in the heaven. At least I love myself

The mind's desire for continuity is distorting your perception. Our bodies are immortal, they will go through various forms after death and emerge as something else. But this immortality isn't good enough for your conditioned ego, so you invent a fantasy instead that you call "positive". There is as much truth to that as there is to the notion that people who don't believe the same garbage are choosing a depressing outlook on life. You are the one driven by fear, false hope, and anti-life ideologies that lead to neurosis. Throw away your crutches, you can walk.

 

[The Esotericist]

non sequitur - you know that is not what the context was - we are talking philosophy and psychology, not medicine.

. . . Speaking of psychology, you seem obsessed with religion and all topics on atheism. I myself think spiritualism is an intensely personal issue. One can only come to know the source consciousness through personal experience, or on the contrary, by closing oneself off by being blind to the connection thereof.

No amount of discussion on a public forum will ever bring you closer to the divine, nor separate those who have made that connection. So why beat a horse that can't be resurrected through no will of your own?

Which brings us back to your parents. I speculate that your parents have foisted dogma unto you, which has clouded your soul. And, necessarily, public education, and Jesuit dogma in secondary and post secondary institutions of higher learning have all trained us to reject any notions of a higher consciousness by implying that if there were a higher consciousness, it must be anthropomorphized. I notice in all of your threads, your idea of a higher source consciousness is highly anthropomorphized, it is clear you lack the imagination to think outside the box to imagine a consciousness that could link the consciousness of all of humanity, with the consciousness of all of life, all of matter, and all of energy. Could you even conceive that the ground beneath you is conscious? Or that the trees beside you are conscious? Of course not, because your conception of "GOD" is human like, so trees and dirt couldn't be conscious like you. . . and the churches preach that dogs and cats have no entry to paradise. . .

And so all your threads are the same, they lack imagination and are futile attempts to reconcile the pain of imposed dogma upon higher spirit, a spirit that clearly wishes to be free. You are obviously very intelligent. Probably science hasn't provided any clues either, for the establishment doesn't give any clues to the answers either. If it did, it would explain consciousness. But it doesn't, and it can't.

If you wish to find that source of god, look for the source of consciousness. But be warned, you will not be allowed to discuss it here. There is no scientific proof where consciousness lay, or that it even exists. . . but you and I both know it is there, we experience it. It is experiential. The hard core scientist, the deluded atheist will tell you that it is an "illusion," and that, is where the conversation ends.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Good points.

jan.

Jan, atleast acknowledge me doing something that most* theists never do - accepting a mistake. I apologied, retracted my OP and practically bent over backwards in thanking you for do your job as a conversational partner.

*FYI, I dont include you in this. SAM, however, might be.

 

[aaqucnaona]

@DUMB DUDE

Welcome to sciforums! Ok here we go -

"Strength is life; weakness is death"

And what does that apply to? A appeal to emotion or a simple quote is not an argument for anything.

As I don't want to die,

Neither do I. But we will.

I believe in hope and don't like negativity.

I believe in boldly facing reality, whatever it may be. I dont think that my belief in hope or optimism affects the objective reality of the world and hence is of no practical consequence to me.

Atheist are too much negative and that is often suicidal.

The more negative you are, the more careful you would be. Your statement has an extra A.

They enjoy to be cynical but it's just a pretext for doing nothing.

No, we delight in scepticism, because whatever can survive our scrutunity comes with a demonstrable certainty which even the most faithful cannot match. In what sense do atheists do nothing? They are the largest group among the intellectual elite - they are the people who actually do the most for humanity - this is what they did last year - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112278
Your turn.

Believing in god doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta prove something in my science lab",

No it doesnt. Belief is ontological. Objective existence is epistemic and it has to be proven to be excepted. Which means that you can believe in God, but dont except there to be a real god unless you have proof and dont except your beliefs to be shared by others. If you make a knowledge claim and not a belief claim [you say "there is a God" instead of "I believe in God"], then you have made a epistemological claim and you are under the burden of proof to substantiate it.

it's just a positive state of mind which is essential for life to move on.

No, it is a state of wishful thinking and avoidance of reality, hoping hopelessly that your whim come true. But I will concede the point that moving on after something bad is easier for theists than atheists, though atheists have lesser baggage in this situation.

So, I would rather want to be in the heaven.

And I would like to be in the Spagetti Monster heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

At least I love myself

So do we, and more so and deeper than you can ever imagine -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111931

In closing-
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
- George Bernard Shaw

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know why I'm even responding to this.

Hopefully someone has pointed out that if one accepts the concept of the Christian hell, then one logically should accept the related concept of eternal torment. To say I want to suffer eternal torment, as opposed to eternal tranquility, is just inane and silly. Torment is torment. This doesn't mean you get breaks to socialize with famous dead people! As someone who was raised with religion, the very notion of your suggestion is hilarious.

You act as if heaven and hell are supposed to be social clubs.

 

[aaqucnaona]

. . . Speaking of psychology, you seem obsessed with religion and all topics on atheism. I myself think spiritualism is an intensely personal issue. One can only come to know the source consciousness through personal experience, or on the contrary, by closing oneself off by being blind to the connection thereof. No amount of discussion on a public forum will ever bring you closer to the divine, nor separate those who have made that connection. So why beat a horse that can't be resurrected through no will of your own?

I have no interest in being religiously spiritual or closer to God. My only current interest is to find out what we know and what that tells us about the probability of their being a hypothetical being called "God" that actually exists outside the minds of his believers.

Which brings us back to your parents. I speculate that your parents have foisted dogma unto you, which has clouded your soul. And, necessarily, public education, and Jesuit dogma in secondary and post secondary institutions of higher learning have all trained us to reject any notions of a higher consciousness by implying that if there were a higher consciousness, it must be anthropomorphized.

My dad is a moderate strong theist and my mother is a apathetic weak theist.

I notice in all of your threads, your idea of a higher source consciousness is highly anthropomorphized, it is clear you lack the imagination to think outside the box to imagine a consciousness that could link the consciousness of all of humanity, with the consciousness of all of life, all of matter, and all of energy. Could you even conceive that the ground beneath you is conscious? Or that the trees beside you are conscious? Of course not, because your conception of "GOD" is human like, so trees and dirt couldn't be conscious like you. . . and the churches preach that dogs and cats have no entry to paradise. . .

I am a spinozist, I do believe in the collective everything being something like god, Deus vise Natura - but you dont worship gravity, do you? The god you describe not only ISNT he religious or a personal God,.

And so all your threads are the same, they lack imagination and are futile attempts to reconcile the pain of imposed dogma upon higher spirit, a spirit that clearly wishes to be free.

Excuse me? There were NO dogma ever holding me back. The only things that ever held me back were taboos.

You are obviously very intelligent. Probably science hasn't provided any clues either, for the establishment doesn't give any clues to the answers either.

It does. Science has do a marvellous and highly competent job of snatching away the credit given to God and has assigned those things to natural explainations. This will eventual get to such a level where no only will God become unnecessary both also irrelevant - only philosophy and spirituality* will remain as a form of expression of the human aesthetic. Btw, thnx 4 the complement.

If it did, it would explain consciousness. But it doesn't, and it can't.

Not yet.

If you wish to find that source of god, look for the source of consciousness.

You might suggest this, but how can you assert this [which your tone indicates]?

But be warned, you will not be allowed to discuss it here.

Yes I would. Alternate theories and free thoughts come to mind.

There is no scientific proof where consciousness lay, or that it even exists. . .

We can be certain it is connected to the brain. And consciousness exists - we are sentient beings, so is a cat, mouse and octopus.

but you and I both know it is there, we experience it. It is experiential.

A shared experience is empirical evidence.

The hard core scientist, the deluded atheist will tell you that it is an "illusion," and that, is where the conversation ends.

No. I dont think he would call it an illusion. He would call it an emergent property - and he is more likely to be correct than you are.

Btw, a deluded atheist will always be less delusional than a deluded theist - simply because he has less things to be deluded about. Considering that atheism tends to be self correcting against certainty or dogmatism, delusions are likely to be weak or non-existent among atheists.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I don't know why I'm even responding to this.

Hopefully someone has pointed out that if one accepts the concept of the Christian hell, then one logically should accept the related concept of eternal torment. To say I want to suffer eternal torment, as opposed to eternal tranquility, is just inane and silly. Torment is torment. This doesn't mean you get breaks to socialize with famous dead people! As someone who was raised with religion, the very notion of your suggestion is hilarious.

You act as if heaven and hell are supposed to be social clubs.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2901949&postcount=44

 

[Balerion]

Please respond to my post, aaqucnaona.

 

[wynn]

non sequitur - you know that is not what the context was - we are talking philosophy and psychology, not medicine.

So if you have a problem with, say, theodicy, the solution is to solve some other person's problem?