Religious Question
04-12-2011, 06:11 AM
Just to answer your li'l tiny fonted question, Magitek of why it doesn't matter if atheists don't believe in god, heaven or hell, etc.
Atheists are like Christians, there's loads of schools of thoughts, and some are actually very different. Atheists don't believe in god, that's not to say they don't believe in an afterlife. Those who follow Jainism are atheists, as are some schools of Buddhists. Both have an afterlife. But the real issue is a feeling of judgment and what is seen as a loophole, or hole in logic. It's effectively a challenge of logic for many, and also a philosophical quandary. One that exists in most, if not all cultures. It's a Pandora's Box.
If you open the box, and share the knowledge, you effectively doomed someone to exist in evil. Is it better to have kept the box shut? The classical versions use temptation as the catalyst. In this version, there's a reward instead. Open the box, share the knowledge and effectively doom someone to exist in evil - but, if they exist right, they get the better reward for it all. The silver star becomes the gold star.
These kinds of philosophical debates rarely actually deal outside of what would be considered a neutral hypothetical. The hypothetical being that heaven and hell exist for the purposes of the scenario, and that one will not go to heaven having being told, but otherwise not have been punished. Why did you doom that person?
But the argument is fairly moot in general Christianity, since like I said there's uncountable schools of thoughts, schisms and sub faiths, each one having varying believes and customs. So, for one, you don't accept Jesus, and you are told, you burn, another, you might simply exist in a place of missing.
It's a loop argument.
Atheists are like Christians, there's loads of schools of thoughts, and some are actually very different. Atheists don't believe in god, that's not to say they don't believe in an afterlife. Those who follow Jainism are atheists, as are some schools of Buddhists. Both have an afterlife. But the real issue is a feeling of judgment and what is seen as a loophole, or hole in logic. It's effectively a challenge of logic for many, and also a philosophical quandary. One that exists in most, if not all cultures. It's a Pandora's Box.
If you open the box, and share the knowledge, you effectively doomed someone to exist in evil. Is it better to have kept the box shut? The classical versions use temptation as the catalyst. In this version, there's a reward instead. Open the box, share the knowledge and effectively doom someone to exist in evil - but, if they exist right, they get the better reward for it all. The silver star becomes the gold star.
These kinds of philosophical debates rarely actually deal outside of what would be considered a neutral hypothetical. The hypothetical being that heaven and hell exist for the purposes of the scenario, and that one will not go to heaven having being told, but otherwise not have been punished. Why did you doom that person?
But the argument is fairly moot in general Christianity, since like I said there's uncountable schools of thoughts, schisms and sub faiths, each one having varying believes and customs. So, for one, you don't accept Jesus, and you are told, you burn, another, you might simply exist in a place of missing.
It's a loop argument.
Snazzy Sig in a Spoiler
