you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The best explanation I've heard, as an agnostic, is this is our misperception of this life vs an eternal (infinite) afterlife.

Sure, bad people might live really fun lives for maybe 100 years while good people might suffer for the same. But then, for millions and millions and gazillions of millennia after that, both are punished or rewarded for how they chose to live those 100 years.

My friend's baby had a bunch of vaccinations the other day. Horrible day for the kid, unfun and stabby. But in a dozen years, will she remember it? Nope. But that day, that's all she could comprehend. Similarly, for this brief go around, yeah, what we can see and experience is all we can really comprehend. But the promise of at least Christianity, but I think many other religions, is that the next life is infinite and all that matters.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    Conclusion: its use to keep the miserable good people placid while the bad guys have all the fun

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    If there's no God, then sure. If there is a God, there's a life of infinite paradise for those who deserve it.

    That's the whole thing. The conclusion changes dramatically if there is or isn't a God.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    At least as long as you believe in the right god. Because if you bet wrong, and the ownership rights to heaven and hell are not the Christian God's, but someone else's, you're fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    As an atheist. You create a straw man. You don't know what a god is looking for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, I was trying to joke about this a bit, but in all honesty, I just find this specific argument for belief to be basically Stockholm syndrome.

    First things first, it's a really old argument. It's called Pascal's Wager, and the little joke I tried to make was about a criticism of it, called "argument from inconsistent revelations". This whole conversation has been done before. (This goes to OP about this, as well @MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca)

    But, fundamentally, this whole deal with the "infinite value" of heaven and hell, is just a threat. It's your pimp saying "Obey me, and you get money and comfort. Don't, and I break all your bones and destroy you. Nothing else in your life matters, due to the absolute power I have over you".

    There's nothing more to this argument. It's just taking a carrot-and-stick threat at face value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    EXCEPT your pimp can plausibly offer you literal eternal bliss.

    This whole conversation has been done before.

    Yup, just like the "oh you better have chosen the right God!" I think every ten year old has that thought and figured they've got religion on the ropes.

    It's probably one of those irreconcilable arguments. If a God exists etc, then yeah, you can absolutely see a system of infinite reward/punishment. If no God exists, yeah, you can easily see a system enacted to control the masses.

    I know which I think is more likely but I also know that anyone completely dismissing the other side without qualification probably hasn't thought it through with a mind willing to question their own beliefs.

  • source
  • parent