Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
jonarus_drakus:
--- Quote from: chronoplasm on 28 Jul 2009, 12:45 ---
--- Quote from: jonarus_drakus on 28 Jul 2009, 12:36 ---
1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!
--- End quote ---
You do realize, of course, that by refusing immunizations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk; you are putting every person you come into contact with at a greater risk for infection.
Thanks a lot.
--- End quote ---
This thing sucks at sarcasm...
Not that its a biggy to me. To be a threat to the health of others i'd have to get sick myself, and i dont get sick. I mean, once in every 2-3 years i get a bad head cold or something, max...
Unless of course you include alcohol poisoning under the 'sick' heading...
Surgoshan:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 28 Jul 2009, 10:05 ---Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
--- End quote ---
Nonsense. Before you can remind me about stakes, you have to convince me that there's even a game. I've yet to see any evidence of such.
Pypoli:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 28 Jul 2009, 10:05 ---You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"
My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.
Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view. I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.
--- End quote ---
I disagree with that as well. I'm preety sure that with the current state I've lived my life, even being a proclaimed atheist, and not having attended mass once in my life, if there was a god, i wouldn't be in danger of being eternally damned.
Why? Because in some ways, I do follow some of the basic rules of religion. Not because I'm afraid of eternal damnation if i don't, but because it's the right thing to do.
Following a dogma because you're afraid of the repercussions isn't really what i call enligthenment. Following your ideas, the fact that you should, whenever possible, avoid hurting the people around you, and help those that you can, purely because it is what YOU believe is right; THAT is what life should be about.
It also has the advantage of not causing fanatism and religious wars. Believe in god if you will, but following every single one of the dogmas written down in the Coran, the Bible, the Torah or whichever religious book you're following is listening to the voices of men that have died 1500 to 3000 years ago, when times were very different.
You should keep the general ideas, but do you really need the protocol?
Bottom line is, as long as i live a good life, I don't believe a potential god would condemn me to hell over a technicality. And if he does, he doesn't deserve any of us to believe in him.
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: Delirium on 28 Jul 2009, 15:10 ---Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
--- End quote ---
I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument. And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up. I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview. I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.
jonarus_drakus:
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 29 Jul 2009, 07:09 ---
--- Quote from: Delirium on 28 Jul 2009, 15:10 ---Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.
--- End quote ---
I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument. And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up. I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview. I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.
--- End quote ---
I reject the suggestion that I HAVE TO consider the whole god/no god question, what difference is it going to make in terms of my view of the world? None so far as i can tell. The world is the world, it will always be what it is wether god exists or doesnt or even if i decided that its not important at all - the world will not change just because of my personal beliefs.
Now, keep in mind, i am an (admitadly amature) writer, so the suggestion that THINKING the world is different DOES make it different is not lost on me. The problem with this idea is that the only thing that has changed is our own perception of reality. The imutable laws that goven the existence of reality dont get re-writen, we just percive them differently. Take two people, one who can see normaly, and another who is colour blind. Put a coloured object infront of them and they will give differing answers, but just because the colour blind person percieves a different colour due to thier condition the actual object does not change its colour IN REALITY!
>GASP< pant pant pant... oh sweet air! To take a breath again!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version