@morbiuswilters said:
Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment.
Thanks. I thought it was worth a try.
@lettucemode said:
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
You don't escape something by believing it doesn't exist. I can believe all I like that a bus is not about to hit me, but that won't stop the bus hitting me. I can, however, however irrational it may be, insist that the certain prospect of being hit by a bus will not prevent me from stepping into the road. (Yes, I did construct that sentence in that manner purely so I could write 'however, however'.) That would, in most circumstances, be a bizarre attitude to take. But don't things change if the bus could in fact brake in time? And what's the difference between a bus that can brake and an omnipotent god?
@boomzilla said:
You're confusing "why getting imprisoned matters" with "do I care enough about being imprisoned to not steal." The argument that you are actually making is that being imprisoned or not will not make any difference in your life.
No, I'm asking why it is necessary to imprison me to prevent me stealing, given that the imprisoning authority is omnipotent. I thought I already explained - to those less hard of thinking - why that analogy doesn't apply here.
@lettucemode said:
I assume that you value the former over the latter, despite any consequences? (getting arrested, for example)
See above. It's not that I think god can't judge me, but that if he/she/it can, then for that judgement to mean anything, I have to accept that it is correct. If an omnipotent being can't persuade me it's right, is it?
@Sutherlands said:
Oh, you're trolling. Good one! 7/10
Please. 9/10 at least.
@boomzilla said:
The concept of "giving in" does not apply. I guess the imprisonment analogy would be a guilty vs non guilty plea (plus the ensuing trial).
You seem to be under the strange impression that I think - despite clearly stating otherwise - that legality and morality are the same thing.
@nonpartisan said:
@fterfi secure said:
What if god's wrong, in my opinion?
Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong. I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing. As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us. If I'm wrong and there is no God? No harm done. If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations? Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart. If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.
See, I think that's where we differ and yet agree. Is that fair in any way you can think of? I accept that under those circumstances I may go to hell - but I also understand that if that's true, then god is completely evil and should be resisted, not obeyed (just like in Independence Day). Ultimately, when it comes down to it, aren't you actually saying that you do what's right, and god can do whatever god wants as a result?