E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell

[PedroSteckecilo]

Just going with the popular definition of atheism. If we're being totally lexicographically accurate, atheism really wouldn't describe most people who identify as such, as they also don't believe in things like an immortal, non-material soul that is reincarnated: a religious belief that does not necessarily imply the existence of a god, which is what the 'theism' part of the word 'a-theism' refers to.

I made a fallacious assertion that Rocks and Trees are atheists, as Atheism requires an active component, you must actively assert that there is no supreme being(s), that you actively disbelieve in a supreme being(s) or that a supreme being(s) cannot exist. There is no inactive state of disbelief in the current climate of "belief". The Theism portion of the word acts as a clarifier, the describe what it isn't. Though it's not a very good word to describe the belief system as linguistically it kinda sucks.

 

[COLT19111]

...God I miss Ann Richards. This asshat is planning to run again too.

 

[Arbre]

A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

I get the overwhelming impression that we agree, but that we're talking about different things. Understand that my whole point presupposes that Hell does, in fact, exist, and that non-believers will be sent there when they die to be tortured. Now, given that we here on Earth have absolutely no methods to prove or disprove this, we have no basis for gauging whether the Perry's and Hagee's of the world are correct, or not. Thus, we end up with a lot of people that believe, and a lot of people that don't believe. They each have their reasons, and neither has any particular incentive to believe otherwise (because, as stated, the 'threat' of Hell is rather ineffective against those that don't believe in it.)

In the end, given the original condition that Hell does exist, and non-believers are sent there, the non-believers disbelief does nothing to protect them from it. This is a semantic point, and largely irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out how silly it is to say "I'm not going to Hell, because I don't believe in it". Kind of like saying "If I step out of a plane with no form of equipment, just me and my birthday suit, I will not fall because I do not believe in gravity." The latter we can verify scientifically, and thus it sounds much sillier, but the former is equally, if not more, silly, because it cannot be verified.

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Lots of stuff including "Why you bring up De-Rez or Zero Punctuation, I'm unsure, because they don't qualify as "digital interactive media production"s, and thus would not fall under the scope of the clause in this particular law."

Hrrm...IANAL but I would have thought both count, or is it the interactive part that doesn't count?

The link, as far as I can see it, is that Texas Governor votes against mature representations of sex, but is then asked to make a delegate speech at a place that produces mature representations of sex.

And, given that ZP are looking to make T-Shirts with 'obscene' slogans on them (And it was fucking awesome), couldn't that Texas Law block them receiving funding?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

a strong belief in the absence of belief,

Surely this is paradoxical? A strong belief in the absence of a metaphysical belief system would be more accurate, wouldn't it?

 

[Arbre]

Safe that religion is not verifiable. You cannot ask your god to create a second universe, just for the kicks, to see if it actually works the way it's claimed by the sacred texts from all over the world.

Arbre, I have no idea what you're trying to point out here as far as anything relevant to my post

Just pointing out that the ex-Pope was talking about things he didn't know, in a vain attempt to wear the suit of tolerance and intelligence, but miserably failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited. Which made him look stupid.

Where are you getting that from? What are you talking about "failed to understand the differences between the concepts he cited"?

From the Pope's speech. Trying to lecture people on science and theories, but didn't even compute that if he had to test and verify his own theory, he'd have failed. Yet, that didn't stop him from pretending that when science theories fail, religion picks up the torch for the greater good.
Whatever.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

 

[The Potato Lord]

Nice to see so many 1 to 10 post wonders sign up just to say "there is no god hur hur hur." Interesting view point. But so is thinking Al gore is made of greenhouse gasses.

 

[Xanadu84]

I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Also, think about every time you have insulted the side opposite of you on the religious spectrum. Every attack, regardless of founding. All those insults? They are the reason why the other side are so defensive and dogmatic. You tell someone they are going to burn in hell, they are going to call you ignorant, so you are going to get defensive, so they are going to call you dogmatic, so you are going to defend your values in a public scene, so...and so on and so on. Your not going to change how the other person thinks. Insults will only make your opponent fight harder.

Sure, let the guy talk at E3. Even if he does start preaching moral superiority, he will just get laughed at. Chances are there will be no problem.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Most of the debate on Christianity and other sects goes this way.

There's a reasonable precedent for believing in a higher power until we can explain all aspects of the known universe (Which Science is well behind on), and as soon as we do explain it, we become the higher power.

On the Atheist side, firm conviction there is NOT a God is also a -theism, and therefore a religion, chockful of all the help books, stupidity but good people that populate all the rest of the Religions.

The battles come over proselytizing to others what they SHOULD believe in. Now as long as Perry keeps his mouth shut on that, I'd guess he's welcome.

 

[Arbre]

Most of the debate on Christianity and other sects goes this way.

There's a reasonable precedent for believing in a higher power until we can explain all aspects of the known universe (Which Science is well behind on), and as soon as we do explain it, we become the higher power.

On the Atheist side, firm conviction there is NOT a God is also a -theism, and therefore a religion, chockful of all the help books, stupidity but good people that populate all the rest of the Religions.

The battles come over proselytizing to others what they SHOULD believe in. Now as long as Perry keeps his mouth shut on that, I'd guess he's welcome.

No, it's a belief, maybe unfounded, but which totally forbids the divine essence. It can certainly not be theism in any shape or form.

Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

God creating the universe is a theory, nothing more.
Therefore, he goes through a lenghty explanation of the hows and whys of theory failures and limits in regards of tests, a constant verification against the fact. Part of a theory is that it can predict what will happen, and if verified, the theory becomes superior to others.
Thus far, religion keeps making claims out of the blue, but all fail at step 1.
The transition to faith is made when you still think a theory is true, but without a shred of evidence and capability to prove it, and assert its predictability.

This is actually a really complex question. Let's look at it from a different point of view.
There's an insane guy who thinks he's the Emperor of All Humanity. He wears a Burger King crown to demonstrate this. He thinks we are all his slaves.
Yet he treats us all as equals in every way, shape, and form in civil society. He thinks his title of Emperor has no validity in any court of law. He seeks no political power based on his title.

Would we call such a person 'intolerant' just because he considers us all his slaves yet treats us with complete tolerance? Is it intolerance to judge someone according to a metaphysical standard they reject if there are no real world consequences to that judgment?

This is a bad case. He's simply a nutjob who thinks we are his pawns, but is not capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in.
The Hell concept is a wholely different affair, and establishes a undodgeable law which will apply to all, nevermind what happens, and those who didn't agree (non-believers) will be tormented for eternity.

This is not better than any intolerant and tyrannic shit you hear from the fundie front, no matter the part of the world it comes from.

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, it's a belief, maybe unfounded, but which totally forbids the divine essence. It can certainly not be theism in any shape or form.

Doesn't matter how much bold you use, it's still a Religion as it's a belief based on unfounded evidence of a Divine existence. Theism was actually defined FROM atheism.

Umm, when did he present anything of his own in there as being a theory in need of verification?

God creating the universe is a theory, nothing more.

God not creating the universe is also a theory.

This is not better than any intolerant and tyrannic shit you hear from the fundie front, no matter the part of the world it comes from.

That includes the atheist demographic. Fundamentalism does not equate to Religion.

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

Have you tried the same with your Atheistic belief where you still believe in crazy ideas like Electrons, Quarks, Relativity and Celebrating Christmas? Realistically, there's no proof in any of these, just accumulated data.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Dante is the only person who actually posited a philosophical basis for Hell that both made sense and that I'd agree with. And the popes he put in Hell were all corrupt bastards.

I know he's not cannon, but he put a lot of humanity into the faith.