Heaven seems awful 2 me-"Theist laughs at loudly & with great cruelty"

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
fruyian's picture
Heaven seems awful 2 me-"Theist laughs at loudly & with great cruelty"

Hi, How does one tackle this response? I posted something on a funny video that mentioned heaven,
My Post:
"Going from an incredible humorous video to some critical open minded thinking, If I may. To me heaven really sounds like a crude form of servility. Acting like sheep and you have to kneel, praise and grovel this tyrannical dictator from dawn till dusk, who never lets you go and constantly asks you to thank him and praise him every minute of every day. Total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life before you're born and, even worse after you're dead. It's seems like hell to me. It is as they say a fate worse than death. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?

All that not including that this so called 'afterlife' has no evidence for it's existence. None. Postulating such a place brings more questions than answers.. If it does exist, like which heaven is the right one?? I am pretty sure Islam followers have often said they want non muslims out of the promised lands and are going to hell. Same with some Christians saying about other Christians.. Protestants say Catholics are not going to heaven and vice versa and many people say if you are an unbeliever, as I am, or even a homosexual, you are not allowed to go to heaven. Too many questions before anyone has to claim certainty.

Sure the idea of seeing your loved ones again brings comfort, that is human in away, but that in no way validates such claims.. we do know that humans lie and create myths, like to provide comfort for the unknown. But to me, this life, the only life we know to exist, can be lived better and more actively when you come to the logical conclusion that there is no such place. We are older as a civilization, we evolve and grow out of outdated thinking. But we need to criticize these claims in order to advance civilization. There that is all. Cheers if anyone took the time to read this.. now i'm off :)"

and his post to this:
"Nope, you son have a child's view of religion that a sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theist laughs at loudly & with great cruelty. First the existence of God (& or the afterlife) is a rational conclusion of philosophical argument not empirical investigation. Classic category mistake. Like claiming you disbelieve in Natural selection because you can't prove it using a large hadron collider or disbelieving in a Higgs boson particle because you can't find one in the fossil record. It's called a category mistake. Loo it up. The tyranny of servility comes from serving the undeserving and the inferior. Conforming to reality or Ultimate Reality Itself by definition isn't servility. Ergo serving God by definition can't be servility but is in fact the ultimate freedom. Also omniscience(knowing everything) isn't the same as Total surveillance. You employ surveillance because you don't know and need to observed. God doesn't need to observe anything from all eternity He knows. your primitive views of religion are to me the Atheist version of a Young Earth Creationist type claiming evolution is wrong because of the second law of thermal dynamics or some such foolishness. Good God man if you are going to be an Atheist at least be more intellectually sophisticated."

As you can see I have Christopher Hitchens saying and viewpoint in my post... so would that negate his 'that is not an intellectual sophisticated philosophical view'?

This is what I have written in a short time I have at the moment
[i]"I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be intellectually sophisticated in this area. As the saying goes, an atheist is a person more likely to see all religions the same and usually with experience of actually being religious before one becomes an atheist. That to me is a good standpoint to be at when one is figuring out who has the more intellectual sophisticated view..."[/i]

***************
EDIT rather more information on the last part:
and his post to this:

As you can see I have Christopher Hitchens saying and viewpoint in my post... so would that negate his 'that is not an intellectual sophisticated philosophical view'? As Hitchens is philosopher and majority of his view points are how would you say very grounded and mostly unshakable. And his point about no evidence for an afterlife as well as his view on the undesirable praise and grovelling one does.. is a very well made point especially when he compares the similarities, from the different perceptions and doctrines about this so called 'afterlife', to a real world economy, North Korea, which makes his point a bit deeper.

This is what I have written in a short time I have at the moment.
"I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be intellectually sophisticated in this area. As the saying goes, an atheist is a person more likely to see all religions the same and usually with experience of actually being religious before one becomes an atheist. That to me is a good standpoint to be at when one is figuring out who has the more intellectual sophisticated view... Not saying that every atheist is like this but for the most part it is true that former religious reads and learns about their religion and then decides to leave it"

I would like to thank everyone who took their time to reply with some advice :)

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ fruyian

@ fruyian

Youtube isn't that great of a debate forum... :)
My response would be something of the similar:

---------------------------------------------------

"you son have a child's view..."

That's a nice way to open up a comment: starting with establishing yourself as the grownup with experience and knowledge while diminishing the opposition as the unwitting child that can be patronized.

"...laughs at loudly & with great cruelty"

Another hollow display of a need to feel superior, even down right sadistic.
Is that really what a "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theist" is like? Is that what such a person should be like?

"sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theist"
"Classic category mistake."

I'd say that about 98% of theists are by no means "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theists" and are not even aware of their own reasoning for believing. Most don't even realize that faith "requires a leap", but think that they have a solid foundation to stand on, as if it was based on empirical evidence. They just haven't analyzed their own beliefs enough to know this.

"Conforming to reality or Ultimate Reality Itself by definition isn't servility. Ergo serving God by definition can't be servility but is in fact the ultimate freedom."

"Ultimate Reality" is just a philosophical term to package reality with a god.
You just stated that the existence of god does not rely on empirical investigation but is a conclusion of philosophical argument, so how does "Conforming to reality" equate to "serving God"?

"omniscience(knowing everything) isn't the same as Total surveillance.", "God doesn't need to observe anything from all eternity He knows."

You are relabeling surveillance as "a need to know" to be able to form your argument. Surveillance is monitoring, even if it's not needed. As you state "God knows", that is total surveillance, needed or not.

"Good God man if you are going to be an Atheist at least be more intellectually sophisticated."

Atheism has no requirement for being "intellectually sophisticated", it is simply disbelief in god. Does such patronizing comments do justice to "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theists"?

---------------------------------------------------

You are welcome to use any parts as you wish.

watchman's picture
You could try something along

You could try something along these lines....

Appearing to agree while reiterating your point (simultaneously getting in a couple of passive aggressive digs)

"Well Old Man .....

It may well be that in your somewhat jaundiced view I am "intellectually unsophisticated"...however I would point out it is myself who is championing rationality ........ while you seem to subscribe to the mythology of illiterate ,nomadic ,Bronze Age ,cattle sacrificing ,goat herders ..... and this you patronisingly claim to be intellectually sophisticated...???

Still ageing is often associated with reducing or impaired brain function ."

Last line is optional...depends if you want to escalate...

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"That to me is a good

"That to me is a good standpoint to be at when one is figuring out who has the more intellectual sophisticated view"
You might become an atheist for the wrong reasons too, it is possible indeed that an atheist might "have a child's view of religion".

You should point out that it is possible but it's not the case, and he failed to support his claim.
The burden of proof is on him, else the person who cannot support his claims is the guy who has "a child's view of religion."

How dare he accuse other people of anything without supporting his claims?

So childish and NOT intellectual sophisticated that he does not even understand when the burden of proof is on him.
Even worse, make analogies which are not even related to the topic at hand.

Is heaven a place where you will be separated from your loved ones on earth/hell?
Yes or No?
If yes, then he is being deluded to think it is a nice place.
He is a victim of brainwashing to the point to make him so arrogant to think he is "intellectually sophisticated" if he believies such contradictory nonsense.

Pitar's picture
Not a discussion-worthy topic

Not a discussion-worthy topic. Heaven is the ultimate goal of the theist and no logic can be employed to illustrate its irrationality. May as well flog yourself with a dead fish.

Sir Random's picture
(Sigh)

(Exasperated sigh) Do you only have negative viewpoints to hand out? Is there not topic worth discussing to you? If not, why are you here? And, if you think saying that will prevent people from discussing such things here, might as well flog yourself with a dead fish.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.