At what point would you super-relgious types admit that you're wrong?

[Reaver]

I don't know, TK. I'd be really surprised if anyone would be as nearly as offended by the "what if heaven is real" question as Reaver clearly is by the "what if heaven isn't real" question. Of course if Blueblaze posts about anything involving religion, people are going to flame him and ruin the thread, but if Superted or Reaver or anyone respected by the community posted it, I'd definitely be surprised if people bashed them for it. All I was saying is that I didn't envision anyone getting THAT offended. If your religion is private to you and you don't want to discuss it, fine, but I didn't imagine just asking a question being perceived as such a horrible thing. My question in and of itself wasn't polarizing, I really just wanted the responses of religious people, not a bunch of people with similar points of view to mine arguing with the religious people.



edit: Oh, I finally figured out your sentence structure. Personally, I would never ask the "what would you think if you died heaven was real" question, as someone that isn't religious I know exactly what 99% of people would think ("FUCK!"). I think most people know that non-believers would have that reaction. When I asked my question, at the time I was at least thinking that there were at least a couple possibilities: people would realize that the bible was wrong intitally, and lose their faith, or people would have enough faith in God that even though the bible was obviously wrong, that they would still feel like whatever was going on was a part of God's plan. It's obvious to me now that people really couldn't answer my question at all, of course, but when I posed it, that's what I was trying to get at.

The difference between someone that's agnostic answering the question "what if you die and there is heaven" is completely different than someone who's Christian (or religious) answering the question "what if you die and there is no heaven." Both are denouncing your beliefs but one of them doesn't have rules set forth. If you were agnostic you could believe in God one day and not the next. If you were to even acknowledge that this is possible then you don't have faith, that's the whole point of faith, to me at least. The ability to believe in something that you have no proof that it exists, a leap of faith, if you will. For a religious person to answer that question is to say there is no God, which isn't acceptable according to my religion. For an agnostic person to answer the question "what if you died and there was a heaven/hell, etc" is different because for them to answer the question, they aren't violating religious virtue's set forth, because they don't have a religion. I think this comes back to you being naive, I don't mean that as an insult by any means, I'm just saying I can understand why you would make this thread and not see how this is a slap in the face to those of us that are religious.

P.S. To be honest, if you truly wanted to know more about religion in any sense, there are thousands of better ways to go about it. Even asking on the forum with a better title would be much better than "when will you admit you're wrong" that's not even hypothetical by any sense.


Edit: Kolar, I completely understand and acknowledge that you don't need to respect my beliefs, or take into account my feelings. But that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to let you know when you do so. And usually, I won't. But when a generally well respected member of the community (and a moderator) insults the members, I'm going to speak up, mostly because he didn't recognize that he did so. Just simply calling him a dick doesn't help him to understand. If he truly wanted to be educated on religion, he just got his first lesson.

Edit: thesearcher your analogy doesn't work fine. People don't rely on their football team to make sure their kids are safe. They don't pray to their football team. They don't believe that their football team will give them an eternal heaven in the afterlife. Lastly, there is proof that their football team exists.

I couldn't agree more TK, "Reaver's point is that this thread really isn't much different from Sumpson's "Why do you think TW staff sucks?" thread, really. The questions and subjects are different, but the tone and format of the question are identical."

[Zerzera]

Why? Interesting question, since most of everything between the start & end of that book are just the babblings of man. Job's friends telling him to curse god etc.. for all the sudden hardship.

If you look at it that way the entire bible is babblings of man and should be ignored. But if you believe in what's written this, to me, touches most about what God is and why life then would be like it is.
I could ask you instead why we are born unequal to each other, how easy is it to live a good life when you are raised by fair Christians, and how hard to live a good life when you are raised in hardship.
Is God really keeping a score and would you need to live by the commandments if your life won't seem to let you? If you are rich that will be a burden to your soul?
Basically all it says to me is that you only have to keep the faith in God and you will be saved, no matter what you do. What's that? Catholicism?

[Facetious]

Ha, I didn't even notice that.

[Jeenyuss]

you didn't even spell religious right.

[Facetious]

Having said that, you'd have to concede that there are many here who would have been offended by that question. Just look at the "Believe?" thread Blueblaze made less than a day after which offered a question to how you intended this one to be, only with an opposing perspective. That thread drew several angry responses. Granted, much of the response was from people who are tired of the number of religious threads made recently, but then, his question was less polarizing than yours was, as it was directed specifically towards those who do consider themselves to be religous but don't take the Bible's words literally.

I don't know, TK. I'd be really surprised if anyone would be as nearly as offended by the "what if heaven is real" question as Reaver clearly is by the "what if heaven isn't real" question. Of course if Blueblaze posts about anything involving religion, people are going to flame him and ruin the thread, but if Superted or Reaver or anyone respected by the community posted it, I'd definitely be surprised if people bashed them for it. All I was saying is that I didn't envision anyone getting THAT offended. If your religion is private to you and you don't want to discuss it, fine, but I didn't imagine just asking a question being perceived as such a horrible thing. My question in and of itself wasn't polarizing, I really just wanted the responses of religious people, not a bunch of people with similar points of view to mine arguing with the religious people.

It's also a question that someone who isn't religous could ask, using the exact same words, while someone who was religious wouldn't have posed the question you asked.

edit: Oh, I finally figured out your sentence structure. Personally, I would never ask the "what would you think if you died heaven was real" question, as someone that isn't religious I know exactly what 99% of people would think ("FUCK!"). I think most people know that non-believers would have that reaction. When I asked my question, at the time I was at least thinking that there were at least a couple possibilities: people would realize that the bible was wrong intitally, and lose their faith, or people would have enough faith in God that even though the bible was obviously wrong, that they would still feel like whatever was going on was a part of God's plan. It's obvious to me now that people really couldn't answer my question at all, of course, but when I posed it, that's what I was trying to get at.

[Spider]

Spider... there will be a place for religion for a very long time yet. People need #1 and #2 of my criteria. #1 can somewhat be mitigated by science, but #2 can't. Unless you're a country like Japan, or are a strict communist country where there's a prevailing ideology to act a certain way, society will need religion in order to make sure people don't just do whatever they want because they realize there aren't enough consequences for things which laws do not regulate.

I still believe that either the PlayStation or organized religion will die out in my life time. Maybe both.

If by the time I die PlayStations remain the most popular console and a religion develops around them I will be very disappointed. The Wii on the other hand... I wonder if anyone has sent the Pope one of those yet...

[Troll King]

Just on the flip side though, had someone asked me the exact question, only the opposite, "What would you be thinking about if you died and ended up in front of St. Peter, and he was going through all the times you'd mentioned that you didn't believe in Jesus Christ? I don't give a crap if you think Jesus doesn't exist, what would you think if all that happened" I guarantee you I would have just answered the question, and wouldn't feel in any way mocked or made fun of.

Having said that, you'd have to concede that there are many here who would have been offended by that question. Just look at the "Believe?" thread Blueblaze made less than a day after which offered a question to how you intended this one to be, only with an opposing perspective. That thread drew several angry responses. Granted, much of the response was from people who are tired of the number of religious threads made recently, but then, his question was less polarizing than yours was, as it was directed specifically towards those who do consider themselves to be religous but don't take the Bible's words literally. It's also a question that someone who isn't religous could ask, using the exact same words, while someone who was religious wouldn't have posed the question you asked.

[thesearcher]

Whether people were or weren't surprised is a completely moot point compared to what this thread is really about. Your football analogy doesn't work at all. You can't compare someone's faith to a football team to someones faith to God. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

Edit: Since when does "at what point would you super-religious types admit that you're wrong" translate into: "inviting religous people to explain their faith"

my analogy works fine, a persons religion is fundamentally just something they beleive strongly in and follow, if you have ever met any truly hardcore football fans you would know they treat the love of their team much like a faith.

as for your second point, how did this thread turn out again? oh yeah, thats right, blueblaze explaining his faith, and why because of it he could never answer facetious' hyperthetical question, which actually wasnt that hard a question to answer, faith or no faith.

[Facetious]

Generally when someone starts a thread in the "pub chat" then it's directed at everyone. If you titled the thread "when will blueblaze and heavensent..." then that would be different, but you generalized and now you've insulted other people in the process. Your so called hypothetical question was your attempt at insulting the people that annoy you on this forum. The people that constantly tout about their religious beliefs. You know what's just as bad as people that tout their religious beliefs? People that tout their anti-religious or agnostic beliefs.
I can completely understand if you don't know much about religion and don't care to. You might find this surprising, but I can actually accept that people don't wish to believe. I don't try and "convert" them, I respect someone's decision to do so, however if they came to me with interest I wouldn't turn them away. I believe Christianity is losing the "grip" it had on this country anyways so you won't have to worry about that.
This thread didn't insult me because you believe I'm wrong about the afterlife. This thread insulted me because you posted a "hypothetical" question that was nothing more than you lashing out at Blueblaze and others by making a mockery of someone's beliefs. Where you went wrong was that you thought it would be ok to make fun of someone's beliefs because it was only offending people you dislike. You might feel just as strongly about being agnostic as I do about being religious, but you'll never find me making a mockery of something others believes in because it has a self-righteous touter here or there.

No you shouldn't have to change what you believe, but you shouldn't say whatever you like either. I'm not going to get into the roles of a moderator, but I can tell you that I don't ever remember Zeus!!! or really any moderator for that matter starting threads like this. Completely regardless of whether you're a moderator or not, I'm still a bit surprised, this is something more expectable from wark.

I don't think you understood what I said in my last post at all. What I meant was that I do want to understand religion, and this thread was an obviously misguided attempt to do so. I'm confused though, are you frustrated at the question, or the tone of the post? I don't quite see how the question "what if you die and the afterlife isn't what you expect" is "making fun" or "making a mockery" of religious people. I explained that what I meant by "I don't give a crap that you don't think it's possible" was that I know religious types expect the afterlife they expect, that's a given, and that I didn't want the thread to get overrun with Bible verses, as we all know where that leads. The tone of that sentence was directed at Blueblaze, etc, and I didn't mean for that particular point to override the rest of the post. I don't think I ever preached anything in this thread. I never said anything about the existence of St. Peter or God other than "what if you find out what's written in the Bible doesn't appear to be entirely true." I didn't say "THEY DON'T EXIST U STUPIDS WUTS GONNA HAPPEN WHEN YOU FIND OUT THEY DON'T EXIST."

Somehow, I suspect, no matter how I phrase a thread where my goal is to try and better understand the mindsets of religious people, I'm not going to get very many responses that aren't angry or completely off topic. Lesson learned. I just hope you understand that it certainly was not my intent to offend people, I actually wanted to know the answer to my question. However, as Troll King pointed out, what did not occur to me is that no truly religious person could ever answer my question, as anyone who is really religious has too much faith to consider the hypothetical that I proposed.

Just on the flip side though, had someone asked me the exact question, only the opposite, "What would you be thinking about if you died and ended up in front of St. Peter, and he was going through all the times you'd mentioned that you didn't believe in Jesus Christ? I don't give a crap if you think Jesus doesn't exist, what would you think if all that happened" I guarantee you I would have just answered the question, and wouldn't feel in any way mocked or made fun of.

[Troll King]

Reaver's point is that this thread really isn't much different from Sumpson's "Why do you think TW staff sucks?" thread, really. The questions and subjects are different, but the tone and format of the question are identical.

[Kolar]

Reaver, I don't have to respect your beliefs, I don't have to take into account your feelings on where we end up after we die but I do have to respect your right to believe it. Freedom of religious expression does not protect people or institutions from criticism. If Facetious is being a dick then call him on it, don't act like he's broken some holy fucking rule here and harp on it.

[WuTang420]

well i dont think theres is an afterlife. therefor most anything would suck

edit: unless there was weed, then i could give a fuck what else is goin on

[Reaver]

I find it amusing that somebody starts a thread blatently inviting religous people to explain their faith, and then people are surprised and angry when they get 'preached at'. If you read this thread and was then insulted to be preached at, you shouldnt have been stupid enough to expect anything else.

i also find it incredibly hypocritical that the thread created by Blueblaze was moved to useless crap, reason stated by aquatic that there were only about 3 on topic replies, when this thread has been allowed to stay in pubchat, when it has also been completely derailed from its original question? If people dont want to read something 'preachy' why the hell do you even think about reading a thread started by blueblaze? if the fact that Blueblaze started it wasnt enough for you to realise it was going to be religous, perhaps the title may have been a clue? double standards in my opinion.

If somebody made a thread saying "at what stage would you admit your football team, -insert team here- is shit" and a die hard fan of said team came on and protected their team saying "but that would never happen because my team is awesome, they have won this, that, the other and would never be relegated" would you be that surprised or insulted?

my two cents on the matter anyway, after growing up in an extremely religous family (father being a missionary) i like to beleive that there is some higher being out there looking out for me, but in the end that is most likely what it comes down to, its nice to think there is somebody looking after you, man made god, not god made man. But due to growing up in the enviroment i did, i find myself having a fair few more principles than most of my friends, although i by no means live the life of a chirsitian.

Whether people were or weren't surprised is a completely moot point compared to what this thread is really about. Your football analogy doesn't work at all. You can't compare someone's faith to a football team to someones faith to God. Well you can, but you'd be wrong.

Edit: Since when does "at what point would you super-religious types admit that you're wrong" translate into: "inviting religous people to explain their faith"

[Jerome Scuggs]

I now believe in God - pavement and i got stoned last night, he failed, i passed.

[thesearcher]

I find it amusing that somebody starts a thread blatently inviting religous people to explain their faith, and then people are surprised and angry when they get 'preached at'. If you read this thread and was then insulted to be preached at, you shouldnt have been stupid enough to expect anything else.

i also find it incredibly hypocritical that the thread created by Blueblaze was moved to useless crap, reason stated by aquatic that there were only about 3 on topic replies, when this thread has been allowed to stay in pubchat, when it has also been completely derailed from its original question? If people dont want to read something 'preachy' why the hell do you even think about reading a thread started by blueblaze? if the fact that Blueblaze started it wasnt enough for you to realise it was going to be religous, perhaps the title may have been a clue? double standards in my opinion.

If somebody made a thread saying "at what stage would you admit your football team, -insert team here- is shit" and a die hard fan of said team came on and protected their team saying "but that would never happen because my team is awesome, they have won this, that, the other and would never be relegated" would you be that surprised or insulted?

my two cents on the matter anyway, after growing up in an extremely religous family (father being a missionary) i like to beleive that there is some higher being out there looking out for me, but in the end that is most likely what it comes down to, its nice to think there is somebody looking after you, man made god, not god made man. But due to growing up in the enviroment i did, i find myself having a fair few more principles than most of my friends, although i by no means live the life of a chirsitian.