I’m glad you asked. It bends my brain imagining one person making up this conversation. He’s clever. It also bends my brain that two people could have this conversation. either way it’s kinda genius.
What I find even more reprehensible than the sentiment “Without the threat of consequences, why should I be decent?” is that their own fucking book holds the answer to their goddamn question (not an expletive here, their god should and probably would damn them for it):
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
The first half of this is a principle independent of religion, a fundamental social contract, the most critical idea underpinning any functioning society: Expect your behaviour to be reciprocated, and act accordingly. If you want others to help you if you need it, help people (if you can). If you want others to be kind to you, be kind to others. If you’re gonna be a prick, expect others to be just as prickly to you.
If all that keeps you from murdering people is the threat of eternal damnation, you forget that your own scripture says “If you kill people, expect that others may kill you in turn.”
Bonus: the biblical Jesus was known to hate hypocrites that pick out one piece of scripture to follow and ignore another and pharisees that carefully interpret and follow the letter of the law to find loopholes and ignore the heart of it. Those people lawyering their way around the otherwise unmistakable passages about generosity and giving away your wealth? Believe it or not, straight to hell.
More disgusting than the sentiment mentioned at the start is the hypocrisy of selectively applying it, the inconsistency in their own beliefs, the hollow facade of devotion while spitting on the principles they perjure to obey.
Signed, an apostate whose faith was shattered by fallacy of preaching love while children suffer and threatening hell while blasphemers thrive.
It absolutely confounds me how Christianity has become a stereotypically right-wing thing when in the context of the time Jesus’s actions are mostly that of a radical progressive who amassed such a following that the power structures of the time had him killed.
Like how in the hell can you run around hating homosexuals and immigrants when you account for the company Jesus kept in the context of the time? Only if you completely fucking ignore it.
My wife’s grandfather was a pastor, and a saying that has passed through her family is “On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise”.
Signed, former apostate who has found his way back to being an incredibly frustrated Christian.
On the day of judgment, there’s going to be a lot of Christians facing a very unhappy surprise
I mean, even that is biblical. The passage in the Apocalypse about “What you did to the least of my brothers, you did to me” features a group of people claiming to be faithful being turned away just as they turned away the needy: “I don’t know you, go away”.
Which means we’re back on the topic of reading one part but ignoring another. How can you vote to slash social security nets, then go to church and look at that cross, the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice and of a man that said “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two, and if they demand your shirt, give them the coat too”, with anything but shame and disgust at yourself?
In the Acts 5:1-10, there’s a story of a couple that sold an acre and gave part of the money to their parish. They lied and said it had been the full amount to exaggerate the weight of their contribution. As per the response, they wouldn’t have to give anything, but pretending it was the full amount was a deceit deserving of keeling over dead.
Yet televangelists pretend to do God’s work, enriching themselves beyond measure. Guess that threat of punishment only works if you actually believe it.
Okay this is actually a perfect eastern vs western philosophy debate hidden in a taco.
I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it’s way more nuanced but I’m not writing an essay on Lemmy.
In general Western philosophies always have a “goal.” Your human life is to prove your worthiness. You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.
Eastern philosophies are much more about being aware of the moment. The past has happened it cannot be changed you should not worry about it. The future doesn’t exist so there’s no need to focus on it. The only thing you can affect is the very moment in time you’re in and the only way to affect it is through your actions.
In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you’re eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there’s no future there is only tacos.
Such mentality likely has to do with the environment. I read some that strategy games are more popular in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe, with the explanation that strategic planning is more essential for survival when the amount of sunlight is limited and there are months were you can’t really go outside because of snow and coldness.
That would mean adverse conditions require it more to plan for the future. Coldness is indeed just an example for such an environment.
Umm so it doesn’t get cold in Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, the Gobi Desert, Northern China, etc.?
I have no idea how it plays between northern and southern Europe but there’s no way that the cold environment has anything to do with this it gets equally as cold if not colder in some parts of Asia. Plus many of those places don’t have the abundance of resources that would be provided by the forests or coasts of Northern Europe.
I am going to make some very broad strokes here. So no armchair quarterbacking me. I know it’s way more nuanced but I’m not writing an essay on Lemmy.
In general Western philosophies always have a “goal.”
I know you said it was a broad stroke, and that in general is that way, but I kind of disagree still. I think Western philosophy is about finding if we have a purpose and what is it, and many philosophers since Greek antiquity to today have answered they are skeptic of it existing or it being able to be known. From Pyrrho of Elis and Hegesias of Cyrene to Arthur Schopenhauer and Slavoj Žižek.
The word we are looking for is teleology (not to be confused with theology). It refers to finality, that there is a goal. Many philosophers did not subscribe to a teolology.
Your human life is to prove your worthiness.
Same thing as before.
You need to look back and atone for your past mistakes. You need to look forward so you can do the right things to be worthy. It is very little about being in the now.
I agree a little more with this, there are many Western philosophers preoccupied with ethics. But that’s why I think they were talking of different dimensions. It was not that existentially you should roam the past or future, that your mental activity should be there. It was about being responsible in the now for the future, and to be held accountable for your past. It was a morality thing, not a conscious/existential thing.
In this case tacos are the moment. So next time you’re eating a delicious taco. Spend that moment to be one with your taco. Concentrate on the smell. Then feel the texture as you pick it up. How the various colors interact with each other. Then as you bite off some, feel the textures in your mouth and how the flavors interact. Watch yourself, be aware of every time you chew. Remember there is no past there’s no future there is only tacos.
Hey! Go away with that mindful nonsense. If I do that, I spend too much time with a single bite and I cannot eat as much (/s).
I always hate that argument. Why be a decent human without the threat of eternal damnation? I mean that threat doesn’t seem to stop a vast number of religious people from being unbelievably cruel to their fellow humans, so…
wtf this guy is still around?! I watching some cringy debate video with him vs Christopher Hitchens (RIP) or someone like 15 years ago when I was an edgy teenager and YouTube was new (shit it’s actually like 20 years ago fml)
The main issue is that religion is something that makes you feel better when you have emotional pain, like a loved one dying. Like any painkiller, it has a purpose and if you abuse it you can deaden your response to actual issues that need your attention.
Originally Christianity was mostly about helping the poor, sick, dying, etc. That genuinely makes you feel better about yourself. Judaism has a lot of references to remaining strong in the face of adversity. Religions are just mental tools. What you do with that tool is up to you. If you hurt other people, it’s your fault.
Please don’t misunderstand. I was not saying that that was the be-all-end-all of religion. I wasn’t speaking against religion in general, just in regards to the irony of suggesting that religion makes people more good. At all.
I don’t. It tells you, in clear language, the type of person that this “loving Christian” is. They literally can’t imagine altruism, and that says more about them than what they think they’re saying about me.
That kind of person is revealing an innate sense of right and wrong that’s independent of their teachings. You should fear the Christian who’s envious of your disbelief in hell.
Yep. Even though I’m not an atheist, I still don’t understand this argument. I’m a good person (or at least try to be) for the sake of being a good person, because I don’t need to be threathened with eternal damnation in order to not murder people.
The reality is that they aren’t held in check. Rural crime is widely underreported because cops in the boonies won’t take a report about domestic violence unless it involves a trip to the hospital
unfortunately, this is often true in big cities as well.
things are a lot better in that regard than they used to be. dv is no longer by default regarded as a “private matter,” laws and resources have improved.
on the flip side, dv can be hard to prove, especially to a busy cop or judge. and policing is also not a profession averse to abusers.
As an atheist I can’t tell you how many Christians have asked me why I don’t just rape and murder people if I don’t believe in hell. Tells me everything I need to know about that POS.
For me I’d say its a mix of legal repercussions AND knowing that murder is wrong and that a society that allows it isnt really a safe society to be a part of, so while someone might be being awful enough to me that the thought crossed my mind, maybe I should go find somewhere to cool down. But, like you said, god had nothing to do with any of that
True, and since probably neither of us are in the heat of murderous anger right now, let’s think back to that time we HAVE been in the heat of murderous anger, And I’m telling you, that sonofabitch DESERVES it, right?! He COMPLETELY DESTROYED my life and he KNOWS it, and he will never even acknowledge it or apologize. Even now the only reason I’d regret following through with this ideation is the dread of prison and losing all my freedoms forever. But yeah, these guys are safe, at least from MY wrath. I moved 2000 miles away. But surely they fuck up a lot of things and a LOT of people are equally angry at them, so hopefully karma does its thing with them.
LOL thank you, I was just venting. I don’t get any opportunities whatsoever to vent about that particular issue that’s always quite a bit of PTSD. Thank you for the hugs. I’m a good person that did not deserve to be wronged by those two people.
The legal repercussions would be a secondary thing to me. I have no problem breaking an unjust law if I think I can do so. I do not feel the slightest bit of guilt violating drug laws.
If I murdered someone? I wouldn’t be able to live with the guilt.
Both points, being A: Controlling the population when they are already adult and B: Controlling the population by raising them “correct”, are equally valid, though. Imo
Exactly this thought made made me understand “god is irrelevant” a long time ago and I became an agnosticist.
I really can not understand people who are only “good” because they fear an ultimate judgment, and not be good just because they want to out of their own volition.
In case there are gods, I’ll be judged for who I am, anyways. It doesn’t matter if I play “good child”. If there are no gods, I’m still happier if I’m not an asshole.
My rebuttal to this is (they usually include murder as the bad thing being done), “Are you telling me fear of hell is the only thing keeping you from murdering me right now? Says a lot more about your morals than mine.”
Maybe, just maybe, also because that may have been the way to get some impulsive but simple-minded people to not make a mess for those around them. Didn’t work with everyone, though. If it ever did, with anyone.
Also, it seems shockingly easy to get some people to commit evil acts as they think they are doing good… and that usually comes carrying a lot of religious ideology and/or methodology, curiously enough.
Yeah, it can be easily influenced. See Stanford prisoner experiment. Religion can be an influence too, but religios people can’t imagine a life without it.
Add comment