"Dogs in Heaven? Pope Francis Leaves Pearly Gate Open"

[Silent3]

Trying to console a distraught little boy whose dog had died, Francis told him in a recent public appearance on St. Peter’s Square, “Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.” While it is unclear whether the pope’s remarks helped soothe the child, they were welcomed by groups like the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who saw them as a repudiation of conservative Roman Catholic theology that says animals cannot go to heaven because they have no souls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/europe/dogs-in-heaven-pope-leaves-pearly-gate-open-.html

As Sam Harris somewhat hyperbolically said, "Victory is near. All coverage of religion is now indistinguishable from an Onion article".

[Ron Obvious]

1. What about mosquitos?

Flies? Dung Beetles, Ants? Or are they the Devil's creatures?

This Heaven place suddenly sounds a lot less attractive if they'll be there.

[cbayer]

4. One of the issues I always had with the concept of heaven

was the anthropomorphic lens that believers see it through.

While I am highly skeptical that there is anything beyond this, I do think that if there is, it is nothing like this life.

[hunter]

26. I think all those little uncomplicated souls get recycled back to earth.

Otherwise all the angels in heaven would be up to their armpits in them.

They are also handy containers for the tiny little souls of sociopathic humans.

Many a Wall Street banker has returned to earth as a dung beetle.

[iscooterliberally]

53. So they do promote Wall Street Bankers in the after life!

[hunter]

56. Small steps.

99% of them can't even manage a ball of shit and return as something smaller.

[bvf]

2. Shit.

I was looking forward to an afterlife without mosquitos or centipedes.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Centipedes are Satan's pets.

Truth.

[bvf]

23. I am completely on board with that. n/t.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. Just for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00btqm2

[bvf]

115. Aw, that was sweet of you, Muriel.

You shouldn't have!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

201. Me too!!

[cbayer]

3. That's cool and harmless.

While some articles covering religion in this group are indeed indistinguishable from Onion articles, others are actually substantive and promoting things that most liberals and progressives agree on.

Then again, sometimes articles about Sam Harris read like Onion articles too.

It's all in your perspective, I guess.

[cleanhippie]

5. Sure, the ones written that intentionally misconstrue or misrepresent his words DO read like that

Some of which you yourself have posted.

[Silent3]

12. Harmless and absurd aren't mutually exclusive.

When the best you can say about some religious idea is that it's "harmless", and perhaps "makes people feel better", you've already degraded it to the same level as comforting words for children.

[cbayer]

20. So what? If you don't believe in heaven, it makes no difference.

If you do, then it does.

What is childish is the relentless need to mock people for holding beliefs that you don't share.

Making people feel better is a good and righteous thing to do, and if it is harmless, why in the world would you care, other than to feel like the superior adult in the room.

If I go sit with people who are sick and hold their hands, that is harmless and makes people feel better. You going to degrade that as well?

[Silent3]

21. Spending time with sick people doesn't require...

...elevating childish fantasy to supposedly serious theology.

[cbayer]

27. It most certainly require that at times, but it's all about definitions.

If one uses prejudiced definitions of other people's beliefs, then you have nailed your target down.

If, instead, one uses a more open and less subjective definition, it's much harder to attack.

That's why it so simple to merely mock or dismiss other's beliefs when you deem them "childish fantasies".

But it does achieve the goal of making you the superior grown up.

[Silent3]

70. Please do provide the necessary unprejudiced definitions...

...which will no doubt be well substantiated as well as making the world safer for nicey-nice comforting things being said.

Of course, nothing that you've just posted could be interpreted as serving "the goal of making you the superior grown up", the blessed peace maker who would never dream of "merely mock(ing) or dismiss(ing) other's beliefs".

[cbayer]

71. Is there a problem with making the world safer for nicey-nice comforting

things to be said?

I'm not going to respond to the overly personal snark that is the rest of your post. It pretty well speaks for itself.

[Silent3]

73. Yes, there is a problem with that...

...and "it pretty well speaks for itself" that you won't respond to the rest because you can't.

[cbayer]

74. It's always such a delight talking with you Silent3.

I wish for you no nicey-nice talk and much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[whathehell]

75. LOL..

[cbayer]

76. Be kind. His polling place was recently moved to a church and

he is quite traumatized.

[whathehell]

78. Oh the horror!

[trotsky]

22. No, when she does it, it's tolerant and wonderful.

Patting the believer on the head, A-OK. Telling them you disagree is what's disrespectful, or so I've heard.

[whathehell]

44. and "comforting words for children" and "degraded" are not synonymous.

[Silent3]

72. Nor did what I posted depend on those words being synonymous...

...so you'll either have to explain how you got that out of my post, or I'll have to assume this was nothing more than a petulant attempt to turn a few words around into a vaguely parallel structure as my own post, as if that in and of itself would create a witty rejoinder.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Sure if we want a society of grownups who believe in fairy tales it is harmless.

Indeed most of the BAD AHTSIETS!11!! articles about Harris are laughable.

[whathehell]

48. Um, you've not noticed that everyone doesn't considers the concept of God a "fairy tale"?

Or are you just too arrogant, rude, and intolerant to acknowledge it?

[Warren Stupidity]

49. A fairy tale is a fairy tale independent of the existence of

people who do not understand that it is a fairy tale. See for example, santa claus.

[whathehell]

57. Wow...Is that the best you've got?

Don't quit your day job, genius.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Actually lets take a look at the crapfest of voodoo bullshit el popey was wading through.

Animals, the likeness of God[edit]

But are animals also created in the image of God, who created them? Thomas has a unique answer: in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to God, he argued. But in the thinking person, whom he called "the rational creature," there is a likeness of "image"; whereas in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a "trace."[36] Thomas explains the difference between trace and image. “An 'image' represents something by likeness in species, while a 'trace' represents something by way of an effect, which represents the cause in such a way as not to attain to the likeness of species."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology_of_the_body

So like you are sort of correct, I misspoke comparing the santa myth to this nonsense. The santa myth is far more believable.

[whathehell]

64. Let's not. Anyone who claims to want to 'discuss' something he's already

shat insults upon is clearly not "open" to discussion.

I will, however, thank you for reminding me why I had you on Ignore for so long.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Oh, it's not harmless.

It's harmless to ME, but not to THEM, lol.

I'm gonna get some mileage out of this.

[whathehell]

7. Maybe some could bag the snark long enough to appreciate the pope's kindness to a grieving child..

Just a thought.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Really? Like that took a lot for him?

Jesus, if we are going to praise that, we need to praise a lot of things a lot of people do on a daily basis.

[cbayer]

25. Now that is a great idea! Let's give it a try.

Let's start praising people for the good things they do on a daily basis.

I bet everyone will feel good.

You in?

[bvf]

18. "Kindness"?

From the link:

"The question of whether animals go to heaven has been debated for much of the church’s history."

It boggles the mind.

[whathehell]

40. Yes, look it up.

From the post:

"Trying to console a distraught little boy whose dog had died, Francis told him in a recent public appearance on St. Peter’s Square, “

[Lordquinton]

58. So did the pope lie to him?

or is this an official change in RCC dogma (no pun intended)

[whathehell]

61. I'm not aware that there was any "dogma" regarding it to begin with..

St. Francis believed animals could go to Heaven.

[Lordquinton]

80. The article states that it's a point of debate in the church

If he came out and said it as fact it would be changing dogma.

[whathehell]

82. The fact that it's still being debated

suggests it's not dogma, at least at this point.

[bvf]

91. Grown adults debate this.

[whathehell]

95. Yeah..

Sorry if you don't approve, but the value and rights of animals

has become a serious issue for many 'grown adults'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. But the pope is not debating the rights of animals

he's saying "heaven will have everything earth has". Because that sounds nice.

[whathehell]

98. You can quote the pope's statement, but your dismissive assumption about

his motive for it ("because that sounds nice&quot mean nothing, since you

don't know the man and have no knowledge whatsoever of his motive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. So it's something we should all ignore, then

We have no knowledge whatsoever of his motive, so why bother talking about it? It's PR bullshit from the Vatican.

[whathehell]

102. Actually, I'm less inclined than you, it seems, to decide what "we should all do".

I prefer the individual approach.

As far as it being "PR bullshit from the Vatican", again, of course, that's your take. It was actually

just a simple news story. You and the other RC haters, ironically enough, seem to be among

those making the most effort to "bother talking about it".

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. I alerted on its appearance in LBN, because it's not a news story

Because Francis made his remark over 2 weeks ago; and because a vague remark by him isn't 'news'. Now we also realise that the "comforting the boy" happened at least 34 years ago, so there's even less 'news' in this. Yes, I regard the reappearance of this in 'news' as PR bullshit, because it's not news. Someone dredged it up 2 weeks later, and tried to make a thing of it. But DU has taken the bait, so I'll have my say.

The first person in this thread telling others what they should be doing was you, in #7.

[whathehell]

121. Tell it to the OP, dear, and whoever published the "not really news" story

to which you seem to have strong "journalistic" objections, lol.

While you're at it, you might share your indignation with that jury who didn't seem to take

your "crisis of conscience" regarding DU guidelines too seriously.

As to post #7, the fact is, I wasn't "telling" others what to do, I was merely suggesting.

All that being said, thanks for playing.

[bvf]

114. We're not talking about animal rights here.

I think you know that, but if you've interpreted this discussion the way your post implies, you should be out there demonstrating for Fido's "right" to eternal life.

Big

[whathehell]

120. Sorry, but "we" are not all atheists here, much as that clearly annoys you, and

the theologians involved, in the Vatican or wherever it's being debated, are discussing

the true nature of animals and their subsequent value, but in a spiritual context.

Big back at you.

[bvf]

123. Uh, I didn't bring up animal rights.

Sorry, but I just can't shake the comical image of so-called adults sitting around, earnestly addressing the issue of whether Spot gets to enjoy an afterlife.

Hey, I just thought of something else:

Do Chia-pets go to heaven? How about plant life in general? Are there schools of thought on this? If no, why not? Because that would be patently absurd?

[whathehell]

125. Uh, I don't believe I indicated I had a problem with the topic,

in fact, I believe I clarified it for you in terms of context.

No need to be "sorry", by the way, since it's you and your fellow atheists who seem

to be getting your panties in a twist about it, and I find THAT just as 'comical' as your mental

images.

[bvf]

129. So how do you imagine

such a symposium (synod, council, conference--what have you) might proceed to resolve this important and pressing debate?

You'll no doubt let your religious elders decide and accept their conclusions about the eventual disposition of the family dog.

Alternatively, you might want to reject unpalatable (to you) conclusions and perhaps consider forming or joining a sect that maintains dead-pet beliefs more in keeping with your own delusions.

[whathehell]

135. My dear, please check my posts

You won't find one written by me that says it's "important or pressing".

It's you Angry Atheists that have made it that, lol, and, by the way,

since you're relatively new here, you may not know that "goodbye and

good luck" generally means "I'm no longer interested in discussing this matter

with you and if you keep hectoring me I'll be forced to put you on Ignore".

It's up to you.

[bvf]

136. I've been around long enough

to care not a rat's ass about whether a particular member chooses to put me on ignore.

Lord, protect us from angry atheists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. No-one here is your 'dear' - not bvf, and not me

Stop trying to be condescending.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. I encourage everyone to read post #148, to get the feel of whathehell's attitude

to discussion about religion.

[bvf]

172. Almost seems as if there's a template. n/t.

[skepticscott]

190. Well unfortunately now

It will take everyone an extra click to do that. Not sure if it's worth it.

[edhopper]

193. It is

Hysterical,

[trotsky]

208. Wow, nice. n/t

[Silent3]

205. And what about teddy bears and other stuffed animals?

Do they also get into heaven? Do they become animate in the next life?

If comforting fantasy, especially as measured by the standard of what's nice to say to small children, is the metric for truth about these weighty theological issues, I'll have to go with a definitive YES!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

127. For almost all of them they are doing so while munching away on one of these animals whose rights

you claim they are so concerned about. Your attempt to transform the ridiculous puppies in heaven into some sort of animal rights crusade is massively dishonest.

[whathehell]

131. LOL..You have stats on Vegan Catholics vs. Vegan Everyone Else?

Do let us see them.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. Is the pope a vegetarian?

Well wiki says no, but he does 'care' about the animals he chows down on.

Although not a vegetarian, the new Pope has spoken about the exploitation of all beings, particularly of farmed animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

Puppies in heaven, cow on the plate. Them's some fine ethics there.

[whathehell]

154. Uh, wrong pope..

Your link is about Pope Benedict, not Pope Francis -- Keep trying, though.

[phil89]

156. A spiritual context?

Give me a break. There's no evidence for any such thing as a spirit, soul, heaven, etc.

[Lordquinton]

110. So if he stated it was true he would be attempting to change said dogma

So unless he's doing that, then it's not official, and the debate continues.

[whathehell]

119. Whatever, Lord, lol..

I actually have far less interest in the matter than you and some others here, although

it seems clear that your true intent is not clarifying some point of "dogma", but an

anticipated "gotcha", moment, theological or otherwise.

[struggle4progress]

106. He sometimes even preached to them:

Birds, my little sisters, you owe much to God, your Creator, and should always and everywhere praise Him. He allows you to fly everywhere and has beautifully dressed you. He preserved your race in the ark of Noah, that you might not vanish from the world. And even more should you be grateful for air which He has given you. You need neither plant nor harvest but He feeds you and gives you streams to drink, mountains and valleys for refuge, and high trees in which to nests. Though you neither spin or sow, He clothes you and your children. My little sisters, since your Creator loves you so much, and has provided you so many benefits, beware of ingratitude and try always to praise God

I've always thought we needed more eccentrics like that

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Excerpt that was Paul VI who did that, some time in the 60s or 70s

Francis' declaration on this subject consists of "Sacred Scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this marvelous plan cannot but involve everything that surrounds us and came from the heart and mind of God."

[cbayer]

24. Not going to happen. It's a sport.

I ran across this image yesterday and I really like it.

[trotsky]

29. So, uh, when you post that picture to badmouth others...

[stone space]

30. I like that. (nt)

[bvf]

33. Another quote

courtesy of the same revered philosopher:

"You can always tell what kind of a person a man really thinks you are by the earrings he gives you."

[AtheistCrusader]

39. What about what we say about the IDEAS that other people hold?

Because ...

wait.

Nevermind, I forgot, the pope is a bigot. My bad.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. There are ways to comfort grieving people without lying to them.

Call it a stretch goal, but it's worth a try.

[skepticscott]

191. Apparently you couldn't

Not if your post 148 is any indication. But it's ok…scolding everyone else for not behaving in a certain way while you behave in the exact opposite way has a long and glorious tradition in the Religion Group.

Hope you're not going to say that your "buttons were pushed". That just spoils everything.

[hrmjustin]

8. I believe my pets are coming with me to heaven.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. For what it's worth, I believe they are indeed going the same place you are.

[hrmjustin]

43. Yes.

[Silent3]

206. Here?

[TlalocW]

9. Well, you can't leave the Pearly Gates open like that!

The dogs would get out. C'mon, Francis! Think!

TlalocW

[Goblinmonger]

10. Pearly Dog Doors? n/t

[Lordquinton]

59. Call the Baja Men, we just found the man they are looking for

[stone space]

13. Trosqui (2/2/2000 - 11/26/2014)

[hrmjustin]

14. I am so sorry for your loss!

[stone space]

15. Thank you.

He was an anniversary present to my wife, for our 3rd Anniversary.

We miss him a lot.

[hrmjustin]

16. It is so hard to lose a pet.

I was with all my pets when they were put to sleep but the worst was when my 2 year old cat died on my living room table from a seizure.

[Goblinmonger]

17. What a little cutie that guy was. n/t

[benz380]

55. Beautiful. I have 3 rescue dogs.

They are all getting up in years, and I dread the day I lose one. I will have them cremated and will keep them at home.

[okasha]

77. So sorry for the loss of your pup.

[trotsky]

19. If only the "New Atheists" could be more intellectual.

[whathehell]

45. If only the Old and New could be more tolerant of the beliefs of others..

They might be a tad less dickish.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Yeah, *we're* the intolerant ones.

Let me know when there's a standing law on the books excluding you from holding public office, enforced or not.
Let me know when an atheist clique tries to deny you medical decisions, like end of life care/physician assisted suicide at the ballot box.
Let me know when an atheist clique tries to deny you family planning, contraceptives over the counter, or abortion services at the ballot box.
Let me know when an atheist clique tries to violate others rights and deny same sex marriage at the ballot box.

etc.

False equivalency is liked, probably even less, than imaginary friends around here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. For an example of being 'a tad less dickish', please see #148 (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. We'll add "the status of pets and farm animals in the afterlife" to the list of Serious Theology

that atheists must master before commenting on religion. I'm sure that Nietzsche discussed it at length, though, and realised what a terrible step it would be to contemplate a universe without a heaven for rabbits; and that Augustine demolished any argument an atheist might come up with on the subject. Or maybe Aquinas. Or Adams (Richard; though Douglas did have a fine point about the due reverence for a bag made from a skinned rabbit, and whether you should keep it for the reincarnation to see. On second thoughts, he was an icky modern atheist, so we better ignore him).

[Lint Head]

28. Wow. After millions of years of past creatures, dinosaurs

to currrent, Heaven must be really crowded.

[cbayer]

32. Wow. That's a really narrow POV.

Maybe it's unimaginably vast. This planet is relatively microscopic in the scheme of things.

I find it amusing when people who say they don't believe in something have a concrete concept of that thing.

[Lint Head]

34. Wow! You sure are knowledgeable about the specifics of Heaven and the

afterlife. You must have been there to know all about it. Please share your enormous insight with the world so mankind can live in total peace.

[cbayer]

35. No, I know absolutely nothing about it, and wouldn't dare speculate on the size.

That was you that did that.

Do you have more to share? I smell a Nobel Prize!

[bvf]

36. Wow.

"I find it amusing when people who say they don't believe in something have a concrete concept of that thing."

Do you find it any less amusing when coming from believers?

Why or why not?

[Lint Head]

50. Where did I say I don't believe? Nowhere. You are making

things up. You do not know me . Please put in quotes where I said I do no believe. Believe is a general term. You believe in what? If you attack me further "ignore" is a usefully tool I will have to use.

[bvf]

67. I wasn't responding to you.

Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 01:04 AM - Edit history (2)

"I find it amusing when people who say they don't believe in something have a concrete concept of that thing." 

cbayer wrote that in response to you. I was merely wondering whether she finds believers' "concrete concepts" any more acceptable.

[Lint Head]

81. I see. I apologize.

[bvf]

83. Honest mistake. No foul. n/t

[whathehell]

46. What did you expect, LOL?

These people have never evolved beyond a "sky daddy" image of God.

[Lint Head]

51. +2000

[whathehell]

122. Linthead, I think you may have misunderstood..

I was talking about the Angry Atheists, not the believers.

[Lint Head]

142. +3000

My experience is that there are more angry Christians who feel their beliefs are being attacked simply because Atheists exist. If something is "believed" defensiveness is a waste of time and brain cells. Some believe some don't. People need to get over it. If someone feels their beliefs are being attacked, degraded or a cause for someone to change their mind, because others simply does not believe as they do, then their belief an must be awfully weak.

[whathehell]

159. "My experience is that there are more angry Christians" -- Not on this board!

and by the way, to the extent you're right, I think you're speaking of Right Wing Evangelicals or

Fundamentalists, NOT the majority of Christians who are Mainstream or even Progressive, who are,

in fact, much more numerous.


"If someone feels their beliefs are being attacked, degraded or a cause for someone to change their mind, because others simply does not believe as they do, then their belief an must be awfully weak".

I agree completely, only I see that in the ATHEISTS here, NOT believers of any stripe..Those secure,

either in their belief OR non-belief, generally don't spend a lot of energy attacking, insulting and

going out of their way to disrespect "the other side"...They're every bit as obnoxious as

those proselytizing Fundies they hate -- In fact, they're all but a mirror image.

[skepticscott]

66. You must be referring to all those millions of Christians

who pray "Our FATHER who art in HEAVEN..." Every freaking Sunday. They seem to be pretty well fixated on the sky daddy image of God. It's only apologists and intellectual cowards who have tried to morph the image of their "god" into something that they hope won't get them laughed at.

[bvf]

84. Yes.

"It's only apologists and intellectual cowards who have tried to morph the image of their "god" into something that they hope won't get them laughed at."

That pretty much explains the whole arena of religious "scholarship." Let's discuss the ways in which we can redefine interpretation of our nonsensical but holy texts so as to make them more palatable to everyone giving us the hairy eyeball.

[rug]

86. Gee, I missed the part that said "Our Father who art in the sky".

[bvf]

89. Think christian iconography.

Add to that: the sky is called "the heavens" for a reason.

Think "heavens above."

Think "up in heaven."

Think "god is looking down..."

There's probably plenty more, but you get the idea.

[rug]

93. Think what you're saying.

Popular notions aside, heaven is not a place.

There is no up, down or sideways.

You're free of course to keep the popular view, no matter how incorrect that may be.

[Lordquinton]

111. "You're free of course to keep the popular view, no matter how incorrect that may be."

You mean like the whole concept of a god in the first place?

[rug]

126. You know, changing my words to reflect what's in your head doesn't really work.

In fact, it's downright stupid.

[bvf]

183. Nobody changed your words.

What are you talking about?

[rug]

185. You mean like, "You mean like . . . ."

I grant you that is a clumsy way of putting it.

[bvf]

112. I am.

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 04:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Now return the favor and look at your own statement.

You seem certain that your view is correct, whereas those holding what you term "popular views" are not.

You might want to correct the poster here who said, "Maybe it's unimaginably vast," and then went on to talk about the relative size of earth wrt the universe.

My view is that it doesn't exist at all, and it's fascinating (disturbing even) to see arguments back and forth here about the properties of a non-entity.

[rug]

130. Are you certain or uncertain of your own view?

I don't claim certainty that that view is ultimately correct, but i do claim to understand what that view is. Otherwise, I'd be jabbing at strawmen. Which I expect you'd agree is pointless.

I don't know which poster or what poster you're referring to. You can put up a link.

[bvf]

132. As certain as science.

Since you asked so nicely:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=168796

[rug]

134. Science has no opinion on the attributes of heaven.

I'd be happy to read any studies.

[bvf]

137. Precisely.

Nor does it have any on nine-eyed goats, AFAIK.

[rug]

138. Then your certainty must rest on something else.

[bvf]

141. Why do you say that?

[rug]

144. Because you agreed science is mute on the topic of this thread.

So your prior answer that you are as certain is views on the topic as science is meaningless.

[bvf]

145. Science is mute?

"So your prior answer that you are as certain is views on the topic as science is meaningless."

How's that again? I'd gladly answer if only I could figure out what the fuck you were trying to say.

[edhopper]

146. Science is mute on imaginary topics

therefore there is ample reason to believe in them.

Can't beat that logic.

[rug]

150. Science is mute on topics it is incompetent to address.

Unlike some people.

[edhopper]

152. So who is competent

to address the attributes of heaven?

[rug]

153. People who approach the subject honestly.

Otherwise, it's simple posturing.

[edhopper]

155. Where do these honest people

get their knowledge of heaven?

[rug]

157. Philosophy, scriptures, physics, metaphysics.

Start with Aristotle.

[edhopper]

161. Which part of Aristotle

about the effects of gravity? The place of the earth in the Cosms, inertia?

But to give him credit, I don't think he believed in life after death.

[rug]

164. Start with Book XII, substances and the prime mover.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

[edhopper]

166. I think the idea of the prime mover

has been pretty thoroughly debated. I highly doubt we will arrive at a more thoughtful discussion than has been had over the millennia, just a fallback to competing quotes.

My problem with this approach is I think philosophy serves a positive function in discussing how we should live.

I think it does a terrible job of portraying the actual nature of things.

[rug]

167. Frankly, I'd prefer to reread Aristotle than to read a comment dismissing his ideas, for any reason,

from someone who hasn't read them.

You asked a question. I answered it. You don't like the answer. C'est la vie. Pardon me if I don't stroll back with you to square one.

[edhopper]

175. I have read Aridtotle

Not all of him, but I have read him.
I think what he has said about the way to live is good. 9muchmore so than Plato) His ideas about the nature of things and science in general are terribly off.

[rug]

177. Have a nice stroll.

[edhopper]

178. I explained my problem with your approach

And why it doesn't work for me.

I am glad I have given you another chance to be condescending, hope I made your day.

[rug]

179. Life is full of dashed hopes.

BTW, your original questions were themselves somewhat condescending.

[edhopper]

180. They might have been

My bad.

[rug]

147. Of course it is on this topic.

I'll repeat myself for your benefit:

134. Science has no opinion on the attributes of heaven.

I'd be happy to read any studies.

I'll also repeat your answer, for your benefit:

137. Precisely.

Nor does it have any on nine-eyed goats, AFAIK.

[stone space]

90. What about them?

You must be referring to all those millions of Christians who pray "Our FATHER who art in HEAVEN..." Every freaking Sunday. They seem to be pretty well fixated on the sky daddy image of God.

Where's the Sky Daddy here?

17 May 1968 9 people walked into a Selective Service Office, took hundreds of draft files from a cabinet, took them outside, doused them with homemade napalm and burned them in the name of peace.

[skepticscott]

100. You posted this same thing in reply

to a completely different post in a different thread in a different forum. Is this just your reply du jour for all occasions? Why anyone sensible would think it was relevant here is something I doubt you have even a guess at. But my meaning was clear to everyone, so your feigned confusion is also a mystery.

[stone space]

105. Do I have to remind you what you were whining about?

You must be referring to all those millions of Christians who pray "Our FATHER who art in HEAVEN..." Every freaking Sunday. They seem to be pretty well fixated on the sky daddy image of God. It's only apologists and intellectual cowards who have tried to morph the image of their "god" into something that they hope won't get them laughed at.

You were whining about Christians reciting the Lord's Prayer, so I posted a video of Christians reciting the Lord's Prayer and asked you a question about it, which you were either unable or unwilling to answer.

Please do try to follow along.

If the question was too difficult for you, then please let me know.

It's no biggie.

[skepticscott]

107. Do I have to remind you what I was responding to?

Did you even bother to read that, or did you just let your fingers fly before thinking? Please do try to follow along.

I was responding to a comment about people not having "evolved beyond a sky daddy image of god", ostensibly directed at atheists here, but ironically (I know, grasping irony is not a strong point for you, but try…it's no biggie) applying to millions of millions of ordinary Christians, as you were (unwittingly, of course) kind enough to prove.

And please, watching you attempt sarcasm and wit is embarrassing…best to stick with what you're good at (whatever that may be). If you're going to be snarky and condescending in the future, you might want to first have a clue what you're talking about.

[stone space]

108. The video doesn't mention any "Sky Daddies".

I was responding to a comment about people not having "evolved beyond a sky daddy image of god", ostensibly directed at atheists here, but ironically (I know, grasping irony is not a strong point for you, but try…it's no biggie) applying to millions of millions of ordinary Christians, as you were (unwittingly, of course) kind enough to prove.

It's just some Christians reciting the Lord's Prayer while burning military draft records with homemade napalm.

If it somehow proves some point of yours, that's great.

Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask you again.

Where's the Sky Daddy in that video?

[skepticscott]

109. Tell you what

Read my post 66. Then read it again. Then read it again. Keep reading it until you understand, however long that takes. Then, when you finally do, surprise me.

[stone space]

118. OK, so you have no answer.

No problem.

I figured as much.

[skepticscott]

140. Sorry, were you still under the misbegotten impression

that you'd asked a meaningful and relevant question?

[Silent3]

186. Our FATHER (daddy) who art in HEAVEN (sky)

FATHER, daddy, HEAVEN, sky -> Father in Heaven -> Sky Daddy

Did you know that in Spanish there's only one word, "cielo", for both "sky" and "heaven"? That's how close the concepts are.

The equivalence of "father" and "daddy", I hope, doesn't need explaining.

You may not like the cheeky sarcasm, but it's clearly not a big stretch at all to say that someone reciting the Lord's Prayer is praying, pretty damn literally, to a sky daddy.

Not that there won't, as always, be plenty of handwaving and talk of metaphors to dance around anything that might seem silly about the prayer, so we can say instead that this is very serious spiritual stuff here.

[stone space]

192. Let me guess. They're waiting for a bolt of lightning...

...to come down from the Sky and ignite those Selective Service Files?

Is that what you and Scott are imagining is happening in that video with those folks reciting the Lord's Prayer?

You may not like the cheeky sarcasm, but it's clearly not a big stretch at all to say that someone reciting the Lord's Prayer is praying, pretty damn literally, to a sky daddy.

[Silent3]

194. That some people often recite prayers as if they were magical incantations...

...of amorphous power, unrelated to their literal (or even reasonably abstracted) content doesn't at all contradict the Sky Daddy fixation. Hoping the Sky Daddy will "bless" or "sanctify" their actions, or will intervene to save lives as a reward for their actions, is still making an appeal to a Sky Daddy.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Don't forget the billion-billion-trillions of bacteria.

Every one a kind soul.

[Lint Head]

52. LOLOLOLOLOL!

[rug]

54. Since this is DU and not a subreddit, this thread notwithstanding, I'll add this.

What do you think this means?

Revelation 21

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2 I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them,
4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, the old order has passed away.”

[Silent3]

69. What does it mean to me personally?

For me, it's just a plot twist on an old fable, that there could be a "new heaven and a new earth" after the old ones had "passed away".

For others, some of them I imagine take it (like the rest of the Bible) completely literally.

For still yet others, I could spin out any number of possible figurative meanings they might get out of that passage, but nothing would particularly recommend one over any other as more "true" or "authentic".

[rug]

85. It is easy to dismiss but there should be a core understanding of it.

Most of what I've read about "new heaven and a new earth" is understandably vague.

Yet, it is pretty clear that it is referring not simply to a spiritual realm of clouds and harps but a remade material earth (and necessarily a new universe). It's very intriguing.

The only ones I've seen take a focused stab at it are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Other than those few who will live in the spiritual heaven, the rest who are resurrected will live on a literal new Earth, an Eden reborn.

In that context, it would not be surprising to see old dogs once again.

[bvf]

88. Core understanding. Right.

"Most of what I've read about 'new heaven and a new earth' is understandably vague."

Naturally.

"Other than those few who will live in the spiritual heaven, the rest who are resurrected will live on a literal new Earth, an Eden reborn."

Makes perfect sense.

[rug]

94. Right.

You may think Christian theology pops randomly out of people's asses, but then you'd be wrong again.

If you prefer to educate yourself, contrast the JW view, cited, with mainstrean Christian views.

Or you can continue to squat and snark.

[bvf]

113. Right.

"You may think Christian theology pops randomly out of people's asses, but then you'd be wrong again."

Can the same be said for astrology? Reading tea leaves? Phrenology? I'm sure there have been lively "academic" debates throughout time regarding these as well.

How about the incense-protected-against-radioactivity guy, Isaacs?

Or the debate elsewhere about the exact way in which Moses parted the Red Sea?

Yes, religion is all about pulling stuff out of one's ass. It's also provided a very good livelihood for those who "research" the validity of such ass-pulled stuff, no doubt.

[rug]

133. I see what your problem is. You don't know the difference between phrenology and theolgy.

I wonder if that inability to distinguish extends to your opinions on other subjects.

[bvf]

139. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

<Insert treatise here>

[rug]

149. Hint: one concerns bumps.

[bvf]

169. And...?

[rug]

170. The path to enlightenment is trod by one's own feet.

You only get one hint.

[bvf]

174. Been there.

[whathehell]

162. There is a theory you may or may not have heard

that posits the afterlife as being in another dimension, rather than another "place", so to speak.

[rug]

165. Hmm, outside of science fiction, no, I haven't.

But then, another dimension itself would be another place, with added dimension(s), wouldn't it?

[whathehell]

168. Some who believe in an afterlife

believe it may be one of the 'dimensions' Einstein spoke of, the ones science

has no present knowledge of. Whether or not this is considered a "place"

is immaterial, I'd say.

[rug]

171. No, dimensions, however many there may be, are natural phenomena, subject to natural examination.

"Heaven", "Paradise", "Nirvana" and the rest are supernatural concepts.

Doesn't make them true or untrue, but it does make them different things entirely to consider.

[whathehell]

173. Sorry, but many things which were thought "supernatural"

like disease, for instance, formerly thought to be caused by "evil humors" or other

supernatural concepts, turned out to be perfectly 'natural' phenomena, subject

to natural examination".

Strict empiricism is limited by it's heavy reliance on technology, and it's perfectly

reasonable to suspect the afterlife to be a "natural" phenomenon science has yet

to find a technological means to examine.

[rug]

176. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a convincing argument.

Empiricism carries within it it its own limitations.

[whathehell]

181. I'm not making a post hoc argument

so I don't understand your point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. And it was Pope Paul VI, who died 36 years ago, who said it

Editor's note: A previous version of this story, citing a newspaper, attributed a quote to Pope Francis. The quote actually comes from Pope Paul VI.

A previous pope, Paul VI, had no doubts. "One day we will again see our animals in the eternity of Christ," Paul once told a boy grieving the loss of his pet.

That quote, from the pontiff who reigned from 1963 until his death in 1978, was inaccurately attributed to Francis.

The confusion may have begun when Italian news agency Corriere della Sera referred to Paul's quote in a story that carried the headline, "The pope and animals: 'Heaven is open to all creatures.'"

The story itself does not indicate Francis said that. Instead, it refers back to Paul VI.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/pope-francis-animals-heaven/

[Warren Stupidity]

63. It is part of the doctrine of papal in full of bullity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. The Bull

John was so bad that the Pope decided to put the whole country under an Interdict, i.e. he gave orders that no one was to be born or die or marry (except in Church porches). But John was still not cured of his Badness; so the Pope sent a Bull to England to excommunicate John himself. In spite of the King's efforts to prevent it the Bull succeeded in landing and gave orders that John himself was not to be born or marry or die (except in Church porches); that no one was to obey him or stand him a drink or tell him the right time or the answer to the Irish Question or anything nice. So at last John gave way and he and his subjects began once more to be born and to marry and to die, etc. etc.
...
Questions:

10. How would you dispose of: (a) A Papal Bull? (b) Your nephews? (c) Your mother? (Be brutal.)

http://hotgiraffe.narod.ru/books/1066.html

So now we know, if you dispose of a Papal Bull, it gets to heaven.

[Silent3]

68. Thank you for the clarification. n/t

[Socal31]

79. I saw the movie when I was 5.

How is this news?

[cbayer]

92. How about making this a fun thread! I will start.

[bvf]

117. Okay!

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

- B. Kliban

[Prophet 451]

187. I love that toon

My Grimmer always said that if heaven didn't have her dogs, it wouldn't be heaven.

[cbayer]

189. It's a pretty perfect toon in many ways.

Will Rogers said that if there aren't dogs in heaven, he wanted to go where they went.

Many people are comforted by believing that they will be with their beloved pets some day.

[skepticscott]

101. And as usual, with everything the pope says

that gets the progressive pope lovers here all giddy, the Vatican is now backpedaling wildy on this, and saying the pope was "mistranslated" or "misquoted" or some other bullshit. Great way to get your popular lies out there and also have plausible deniability.

[rug]

104. Looks more the "progressive" pope haters here are more agitated.

[bvf]

116. That's politics, for you.

Er, I mean religion.

[MellowDem]

124. I fuckin hate these PR Pope articles...

Saying the Pope is liberal when he's not. It's transparant bullshit. The official Catholic position on animals is clear. And homosexuality, and women in the church, and contraception, and Fracis hasn't changed shit.

And it is, the Vatican hired a fucking Fox News PR guy.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/greg-burke-pope-pr

[whathehell]

128. Awww..

Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2014, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Actually, Mellow, the story had nothing to do with the pope's being "liberal" or not -- It's
just his opinion on animals and an afterlife you don't happen to believe in.

Why not try something called 'tolerance'?...It works better than "hate" in staying 'mellow",
especially regarding things you don't believe in anyway.

[skepticscott]

184. It had everything to do with Blank Frank's New and Improved Image

Phony and staged as that image is. Just another salvo in the PR campaign to make him seem like a softer and squishier guy, so that everyone who desperately needs to can tell themselves he doesn't REALLY believe all that bigoted shit his church holds as inviolable doctrine. HE'S different…HE'S going to do the hopey-changey thing, so they can give him some popelove.

[MellowDem]

199. The Pope believes a lot of heinous shit...

And the devil is behind marriage equality, and women shouldn't be priests. He believes heinous shit, and he leads an organization that spreads this heinous shit almost exclusively through childhood indoctrination.

He hired a Fox News guy to cheerlead the most inane things he says as somehow groundbreaking, to distract from the heinous shit the Pope believes, but most Catholics don't agree with.

[Humanist_Activist]

182. This is one of those issues where the Church is mostly silent on it, so individual Catholics...

including the Pope, can believe what they want, there is no dogma attached to whether fluffy is in heaven or not.

I know that my extremely Catholic grandma believed that she will be greeted by all her pets in Heaven. Given how many she had in her 85 years of life, it would be a big petting zoo.

[Prophet 451]

188. I firmly believe I will see my cats again

We've had six cats over the years, four of whom have passed on to the Heaviside Layer. And I totally believe I'll see all of them again, in the place where no shadows fall.

[Silent3]

195. It's one thing to wishfully hope for such things...

...to imagine, conditionally, if there is such a place as "the place where no shadows fall" that it would be best if cats and dogs would be there with us. I can somewhat appreciate that sentiment at least.

It's quite another to say "I firmly believe" and "I totally believe" in something as if it were factual reality when you have to know there's no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim. One can only hope you wouldn't compound matters by uttering some inanity like "You can't prove there is no heaven!" as a defense.

And it's even worse to dress up such beliefs as if there's something particularly noble or virtuous in believing without evidence.

[Prophet 451]

196. I'm not asking you to believe it

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact is, you can't prove there is no heaven. You might want to call that an inanity to poison the well but it's still true.

2) Those of us who believe do have evidence. When we pray, we experience the presence of our deity. This is called gnosis. Now, that gnosis is, by definition, subjective and personal; it cannot be shared with others. You don't believe it, fair enough. If I didn't experience it, I probably wouldn't believe it either. But I am stating my personal beliefs, I am not asking you to believe them, so the lack of evidence I can present to you is irrelevant.

3) I never said there was anything especially noble or virtuous about my beliefs. I haven't presented my beliefs as any better or worse than those of anyone else, I haven't asked anyone to share them. I simply stated my beliefs. That you, with the sneering supercilliousness common to some atheists on DU, seem to want to be a dick about.

[Silent3]

197. I never thought you were asking me to believe. That's irrelevant.

My comments stand entirely apart from whether your post was a request for others to believe as you do or not.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" may be true, but in most cases it's also irrelevant. Don't you get that "you can't prove me wrong!" is pretty weak tea? There are an essentially infinite number of fantastical ideas, even mutually contradictory ones, which all share the not-so-special attribute that you can't absolutely prove they aren't true.

I can't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. That's not much of an argument in favor of invisible pink unicorns. It doesn't become a strong argument by applying it to feline residency in heaven.

Evidence -- in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." This "gnosis" isn't any sort of real evidence whatsoever, just personal subjective impressions that don't rise to the level of evidence. Since people "gnosis" their way into not just completely different, but even sometimes contradictory beliefs, it clearly has to be unreliable -- and please, don't try to wiggle your way out of that problem with the epistemological mush that is "what's true for me".

If you are "stating (your) personal beliefs... not asking (me) to believe them" on a public forum, I have every right to comment on what I think of those beliefs. Lack of evidence that you can present is relevant, even if you aren't asking me to believe as you do. You are indirectly, by raising your objections, asking me not think poorly about your stated beliefs, and/or, for whatever reason, not be such a big meany and keep my opinions to myself.

My requirement for making such a change is good evidence. You are, of course, under no obligation to provide that evidence. I'm under no obligation to have a high opinion of your disinclination or inability to do so.

As for "I never said there was anything especially noble or virtuous about my beliefs", I never said you personally did. My comment was made as a general comment and didn't hinge on being personally applicable to you.

Care to ask me now "Why do you care?" or "What's the harm if I believe in heaven?" or any other such miss-the-point rhetorical distractions which typically arise in conversations such as this?

[Silent3]

203. How is my commenting on what you stated as a belief any more a form of "pushing"...

...than your original statement of a belief?

If the supposed rules of proper etiquette are that you get to say what you want, and that's somehow either a positive (or at worst, neutral) thing to be doing, but my disagreement is "pushing", that would create a special sphere of rhetorical protection for your beliefs, and disadvantage my disbelief in public discourse.

Why the hell should I be expected to happily go along with rules like that?

You also don't seem to understand what "poisoning the well" means. That's about attempting to discredit a rhetorical opponent him or herself as a person, it's not about anticipating particular bad arguments that person is likely to deploy.

Why those arguments I anticipated are poor arguments should be obvious. You really think I don't have explanations why they're bad?

Suppose someone posts they believe Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States.

Would you hold anyone who would post against that to the standards that they have show a good reason to "care" about what someone else thinks about presidential history?

Would the person who posts "Sorry, it was George Washington!" (or John Hanson, under the Articles of Confederation!) be obligated explain why it's "their business" what the first poster thinks about presidential history?

Would the person be obligated to prove some substantive harm is caused by allowing the comment to go unchallenged?

If those questions wouldn't be relevant in that discussion, why should they be relevant here? There either is or is not a heaven, it either does or does not contain dead cats, and while issues of "care" and "business" and "harm" might play into some imagined system of etiquette (conveniently bending in your favor, of course) about what gets discussed and how it gets discussed, the meaning of terms like "heaven" and the probability of the correctness of statements about such things as heaven are not in the slightest contingent upon my motivations to discuss these issues or your desire to establish self-serving rules of engagement for the discussion of these issues.

[skepticscott]

198. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

What, did someone tell you that it wasn't, and you're just parroting that blindly, without any thought of your own?

[Sareini]

204. I'll try to make this simple for you.

If someone tells you that they ate a sandwich, but don't have an empty wrapper or any crumbs on them, that doesn't mean they didn't have a sandwich. It just means they can't prove to you that they had a sandwich. It does not mean that there was never a sandwich, and trying to claim smugly otherwise just makes a mockery of logical debate. Perhaps a little less of the sermons of Saint Dawkins and a little thought of your own?

Sorry, reading over a shoulder and the utter ridiculousness of this claim just got to be too much for me.

[skepticscott]

207. Obviously you haven't any understanding

of the difference between evidence and absolute, unequivocal proof beyond any doubt whatsoever. As a result, your statement, while it attempts (lamely) to be snarky and condescending, is embarrassingly wrong. Do you need it explained to you? I'd be happy to make you look foolish in detail, so just say the word. Or you can just sit there in your stocking feet and be happy with a hit-and-run.

[darkangel218]

202. +1000