re: If there is no heaven or hell, does the purpose & meaning of your life change?

quote:

---

no risk to believing in God and being wrong.

---

unless you choose the wrong god. What makes yours the right one?

quote:

---

every single human who ever lives will bow down before Christ some day. everyone will know.

---

Unless christ is not your deity of choice. Right?

quote:

---

At the least it’s the best way to keep the world civilized.

---

Hardly.

Take away police officers and prisons and lean on the teachings of religion with only the “possibility” of consequences after death and let’s how civilized the world is.

Maybe there’s a Hell, but there’s definitely an Angola.

If it were proven (somehow) that all religion is bullshite, people would get over it. And after a couple of generations of people being born and raised without it, no one would care anymore.

quote:

---

You levy the accusations of "not very well fleshed out" and "don't really provide much of a compelling argument when taken in their totality" and yet give no reasoning at all

---

I mean, I'd be glad to give an opinion.

quote:

---

People have the nerve to ask me, "Well, if you don't believe in heaven and hell, what gives your life meaning? Do you not detect a slight insult as well as a slight irrationality to that question? You mean I'd have much more meaning in my life if I thought that I would die and I'd be given one chance uh or would have been given while I was alive, one chance, and if I'd made a mistake, I'd be condemned eternally." That that was the kind of judge I'd be facing. And in the meantime, it would be advisable to live my life in propitiation of this supernatural dictator.

---

There's a few misrepresentations here that CH uses that hurt his arguments. First, I suppose he's right in saying that we get one chance if he refers to us as getting only one life, but it strawman's many religious doctrines and what they actually teach. Take Christianity for example. Yes, we have one life but how many moments do we have in that life to repent? Does that not give us many more chances than just one? 2nd, how does one define "mistake" philosophically speaking? If he's going to critique religious belief systems, he would be more persuasive by steelmanning the theological position instead of watering it down to a misrepresented, somewhat arbitrary level. Why present the scenario as a human making one mistake and getting burned for it when the reality of humanity is that we all do things we shouldn't and have done things that are wrong many more times than just one? Also, what does it mean to be or do something "wrong" but that's a different discussion.

quote:

---

Still, why do I care? For example, why do I care? Why do I care about Rwanda? Why do I care about my Iranian friends fighting theocracy? Why do I give up my own time to them? Well, I'll tell you why. Um, and I hope it and I say it, I suppose, at the risk of embarrassment. uh it it gives me great pleasure to do so. I like to feel that I'm since we only have one life to live that I can help people make it uh free as best I can and assist them in their real struggle for liberty which in the in its most essential form is the struggle against theocracy which is the original form that dictatorship and violation of human rights actually takes.

---

This is where it's a bit muddy and one would need clarity from CH on if he is presenting his approach as an advisable path to take or if he's just sharing. Let's say that he is providing his approach as a better alternative to theism, there are quite a few presuppositions in his line of thinking. Why is pleasure good? What are we to do with people who derive pleasure from things we deem to be wrong or negative? By what metric has he decided that freedom is a good thing and where does that freedom end? Are there cases where deriving pleasure from the freeing of people taken to it's logical conclusion could actually bring about an undesirable outcome? What if one, for example, derived pleasure from encouraging people to pursue gender reassignment surgery in their search for true freedom in their most genuine form? Does it matter at that point that the suicide rate is higher for those who completed the surgery than for those who did not? If one had derived pleasure and perceived to bring about more freedom to others in that case, does that make it a good or noble thing to do, regardless of outcome?


Ntl Library of Medicine

quote:

---

Conclusion

Patients who have undergone gender-affirming surgery are associated with a significantly elevated risk of suicide, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive post-procedure psychiatric support.

---

Also, I'd prefer him to explain his thoughts on theocratic dictatorship a bit further. The way he leaves it seems to ignore the brutal dictatorships of an atheistic nature such as Mao or Pol Pot and presents it as a seemingly theocratic problem only.


He uses many terms that are synonymous with morality but he doesn't explain where that morality comes from or by what metric we judge what is moral or isn't. Terms like freedom, liberty, hypocrisy, etc. but he doesn't provide an argument on why those things are even considered good other than they just seemingly are in his opinion.

quote:

---

There is a Haven and Hell. /Thread

---

there is neither. Be a good person

/thread

quote:

---

For children, that person is Santa. For adults, that person is God.

---

I think Santa is a psy-op to precondition people into disbelieving God is real.

quote:

---

I attend church with my wife and think it is important to raise children in church, but I don't believe in our idea of a creator/Jesus resurrection. I don't voice this in church, however.

---

Well no shite.

Seems like you subscribe to the new atheist’s idea of “culture Christians” ie the traditions without the belief, which isn’t viable.

They spent an inordinate amount of time and effort destroying people’s faith, and then have the audacity to wonder why the churches are empty and nobody sings hymns during Christmas anymore.

I pray that you read the scriptures and listen to the sermons when you attend tho. Many spouses have been dragged by their better halves to services and seen the light eventually.

quote:

---

Wrong. Blaise Pascal was a devout Christian and referring to Christianity when he put forth Pascal’s Wager.

---

That's my point, Pascal was referring to the specific god he believed in. I might have worded that poorly.

quote:

---

That's my point, Pascal was referring to the specific god he believed in. I might have worded that poorly.

---

Well nobody posits Pascal’s Wager for Budda, Judaism, Islam, etc, etc.

Pascal’s Wager is only applicable to Christianity because it’s the only religion where salvation is based on faith.

Other religions focus on enlightenment, compliance, submission, etc, etc. So Pascal’s Wager doesn’t apply.

quote:

---

Pascal’s Wager is only applicable to Christianity because it’s the only religion where salvation is based on faith.

---

The argument isn't whether the idea was created from Christianity, it's an argument against the application. Sure, you can live your life assuming that you are hedging your bets by there only being 2 outcomes: Christian god or no god at all. What if there is an afterlife and the god in the afterlife would rather humans not believe in any god over a false god?

Also, living by Pascal's Wager seems like an empty way to live your life. "I don't really believe in any of this, but I'll spend countless hours pretending just in case.

quote:

---

there is neither. Be a good person

---

There area both and being a good person is impossible without the grace of God. Whether you accept it or not.

But, simply "being good" will not gain you salvation and everlasting life.

/thread