Dustin Kesselberg's Beliefs - His Very Own Thread

[Darth Rotor]

Is a god who throws people into hell for all eternity (for any reason) a god deserving of worship?

Sure, why not? I'd like to see Charles Manson so assigned, wouldn't you?

What is accomplished by eternity in hell with no possiblity of redemption?

Punishment, and in some cases, justice.

Revenge for not believing a fairy tale with no evidence? Revenge for a sin supposedly committed long before you were born? Or just sadistic pleasure and the torture of creatures that you created just because you can do it?

Were those rhetorical questions?

Even for a Hitler or a Stalin, wouldn't say one billion years in hell for each victim suffice as punishment? After 6 million billion years in hell, give him a chance to apologize or something.

Naaaah. I don't see the point. However, if this same God decides to let them out after a week, or a couple of eons, who am I to say "You can't do that, Lord?"

Any god who runs the hell of xians is nothing but a sadistic, evil SOB.

In your opinion.

DR

 

[H'ethetheth]

...and in some cases, justice.

I would like to interject at this point that eternity is what scientists usually refer to as 'a very long time'.

 

[Gregory]

Sure, why not? I'd like to see Charles Manson so assigned, wouldn't you?

I cannot speak for Bob Klase, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would like to interject at this point that eternity is what scientists usually refer to as 'a very long time'.

Yes, I understand, which is why I worded it the way I did. Reaping what is sown, and all that, in some cases.

DR

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So Christianity is so weak that it starts falling apart with the introduction of a TV channel and a website?

Interesting.

Kids today care more about Gang banging music videos and sites built with incoherent html. What can I say?

Not really.

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Deserving? That's not a question I ask.

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

No.

This does not answer my question. Elaborate please. Why do you think your philosphy is so weak that it can't compete with these modern fads? Why do you think it needs funding from the government? Give examples if you can.

Because it's so esoteric and complex. It's hard to read the bible and understand it, most people don't even bother. Though it's easy to watch MTV or play with Myspace (I would assume, I do neither).

We disagree there.

Do you believe in total seperation of church and state...and if not, why?

If the government uses their money to further Christianity...aren't they being biased in their approach to religion?

I mean, why not give money to the Buddhists...or the Islamic churches?

I wouldn't oppose giving money to Buddhism simply because it's not really a religion and as long as they don't divert their worship from Jesus It would not matter, however Islam? Would YOU want the govt funding Islam? C'mon. The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding. Especially now under Bush.

It's funny how rigid thinkers never change their style of thought, just the content. Dustin has found himself an unassailable certainty that is, for him, more emotionally satisfying than his previous unassailable certainty. The irony makes me chuckle.

So you're criticizing strong atheism? You don't believe one is justified in denying God?

Exactly how does Jesus forgive you for your sins ? Why is it necessary ?

Apparently when God made the world he made it so that if humans ate from the tree of knowledge they would be poisoned with original sin for which blood could only forgive, thus due to our ignorance and incompetence Jesus had to come down and die for us so that he could forgive us.

So you favor the establishment of a state religion?

Only if it's protestant I do. I wouldn't want the state to sponsor Islam or Hinduism.

So that's why the Catholics, Jews, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc. don't get any money from the government under your plan. You wouldn't want anyone who's hungry and vulnerable to go to a soup kitchen and be converted by the wrong religion, would you? Wouldn't it be best just to outlaw all those "wrong" faiths?

Yes. Though I believe people are free to worship wrong religions if they want to. Don't you?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Yes, I understand, which is why I worded it the way I did. Reaping what is sown, and all that, in some cases.

DR

If that is the case, I wonder what cases warrant eternal torture, in your opinion?

 

[D'rok]

So you're criticizing strong atheism? You don't believe one is justified in denying God?

One is most certainly justified in denying god. However, allowing no possibility whatsoever that one could be wrong is not justified. I'm quite sure the latter applied to you (as it still does) - which is where the irony comes in.


ETA: Just noticed your new sig. I think we have a little window into your response to other posters on this forum - tools of satan all. Welcome to unreason.

ETA: And now it's gone. Interesting.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding.

Really? Define "in cahoots".

Especially now under Bush.

Yes, Bush has done quite a bit to erode the constitution.

Only if it's protestant I do. I wouldn't want the state to sponsor Islam or Hinduism.

So Catholics are bad eh? How is the establishment of a Protestant state religion even remotely fair?

Yes. Though I believe people are free to worship wrong religions if they want to. Don't you?

Yes, I do. That's why I strongly support the separation of the state from any religion. Whenever a state has declared an official religion the freedom of those not of that faith to worship or not worship as they please has been undermined.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Really? Define "in cahoots".

In Cahoots:Faith based initiative.

So Catholics are bad eh? How is the establishment of a Protestant state religion even remotely fair?

How isn't it?

 

[Complexity]

Dustin - Having proven the existence of god and having brought light into the lives of all of us infidels, your mission here is complete.

Where are you going next?

 

[Foster Zygote]

In Cahoots:Faith based initiative.

Really? Bush's faith based initiative goes all the way back to the founding of the United States of America?

The U.S. govt is already in cahoots with various churches and has been since it's founding.

How isn't it?

Imagine that a US theocracy is formed, but it's Catholic. Would you think that's fair to you? Or maybe you could spend some time in Iran and report your feelings about the fairness of Iranian theocracy to any non-Shi'ite living there.

 

[Beerina]

Is a god who throws people into Hell for not believing in Him deserving of worship?

Deserving? That's not a question I ask.

I ask it. It should have an answer. Are the activities of the mountain god Yahweh, as described in his holy book The Bible the actions of a creature even deserving respect, to say nothing of worship?

If a human tortured even one person for one hour, to say nothing of most people for all eternity, for something like anal sex, we'd rightly consider that person evil.

John Lennon once suggested, "Imagine there's no Heaven". I can easily conceive of a superior reality without the mountain god Yahweh, where we die and all go to a nice little paradise. No having to jump through hoops in this life.

Wouldn't that be better than the standard Christian concept?

No.

You don't think reality would be better if people just died and went to a paradise? Or didn't die at all? Perhaps one where maximum pain wasn't so great, and people couldn't cut and slice and rape and torture each other?

A world where a God gives you a silly chance to believe in him without proof (which He holds as a high value for some silly reason), such that the vast majority of people fail at it and get tortured for all eternity isn't, in reality, one of the worst possible worlds?

 

[PixyMisa]

A world where a God gives you a silly chance to believe in him without proof (which He holds as a high value for some silly reason), such that the vast majority of people fail at it and get tortured for all eternity isn't, in reality, one of the worst possible worlds?

(A)

P1. There is no reason to act without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his existence.
C. There is no reason to believe in God.

(A')

P1. There is no reason to act without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his punishments.
C. God's punishments can have no effect on the actions of man.

(B)

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. There is no reason to punish people for acting logically in the face of evidence you provided.
C. There is no reason for God to torture unbelievers as punishment.

(B')

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. If the torture is eternal, behaviour can never change.
C. There is no reason for God to torture unbelievers to change their behaviour.

(B'')

P1. Torture can be used as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. Neither punishment nor behavioural change can be reasons for God's torture of unbelievers.
C. God has no reasons for torturing unbelievers.

(C)

P1. Torture without reason is evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers without reason.
C. God is evil.

(D)

P1. Infinite torture without reason is infinitely evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers for all eternity.
C. God is infinitely evil.

(E)

P1. The only infinitely evil being is Satan.
P2. Dustin worships an infinitely evil being.
C. Dustin worships Satan.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If that is the case, I wonder what cases warrant eternal torture, in your opinion?

Keep on wondering. Since I don't get to make such assignments, I deem this derail to be over.

Cheers.

DR

 

[D'rok]

I'm going to nitpick here. Several of your arguments were formally invalid. I've tried to fix them to make them valid while retaining their intent.

(A)

P1. There is no reason to believe without evidence.
P2. God provides no evidence of his existence.
C. There is no reason to believe in God.

(A')

P1. There is no reason to withhold action without evidence of punishments
P2. God provides no evidence of his punishments.
C. God's punishments can have no effect on the actions of man.

(B)

P1. Torture can be used only as a punishment or to induce behavioural change.
P2. There is no reason to punish people for acting logically when no evidence has been provided that certain behaviours are punishable.
P3. God has provided no evidence that certain behaviours are punishable
P4. If the torture is eternal, behaviour can never change.
C. There is no reason for God to torture people.

(C)

P1. Torture without reason is evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers without reason.
C. God is evil.

(D)

P1. Infinite torture without reason is infinitely evil.
P2. God tortures unbelievers for all eternity.
C. God is infinitely evil.

(E)

P1. The only infinitely evil being is Satan.
P2. Dustin worships an infinitely evil being.
C. Dustin worships Satan.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm going to nitpick here. Several of your arguments were formally invalid.

Yeah, I knew that. (Particularly the "only" in the reasons for torture.) Just got tired of fiddling with it.

I've tried to fix them to make them valid while retaining their intent.

No worries.

Though I think you've broken A' P1.

Make it There is no reason to change one's course of action except on the basis of evidence.

That should work.

 

[rikzilla]

Wow Pix...you proved Dustin worships Satan!

Gee...all I did was prove the FSM could fly....

I am unworthy.

-z

 

[D'rok]

Though I think you've broken A' P1.

Make it There is no reason to change one's course of action except on the basis of evidence.

That should work.

Good call.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wow Pix...you proved Dustin worships Satan!

Gee...all I did was prove the FSM could fly....

I am unworthy.

Hey, no! The FSM is real, unlike Dustin, so your proof is far more valuable!

 

[Morrigan]