Original Sin?

Quote: pew

So atheism is good for the intellectually lazy because it requires no work or effort. Easy way out of critical thinking and taking responsibility for ones self.

Have you or FrGamble or anyone else given as much thought to every other religion as you do to the one you believe in.

For instance, I don't think even most Buddhists can achieve Buddhist level enlightenment, but until you spent years trying, you're lazy.

Too bad, huh.

Go fish.

Quote: rxwine

Have you or FrGamble or anyone else given as much thought to every other religion as you do to the one you believe in.
.

Of course not! FrG has made it apparent
numerous times he is almost ignorant
as to the details of any other religion
besides his own. All religions are like
that, Hindu's don't know Christianity
and don't want to.

Quote: FrGamble

The Socratic method I think works best for the questioner, who can learn a lot as well, when they are required to bring their line of questioning to its completion. Also with this method everyone has to be perfectly honest and open and pay close attention to the answers and questions.

I think the Socratic method is manipulative.

Let's revisit the original question: "Question: is it sinful to pray to pray for someone to die quickly and without pain, rather than suffer a lingering, painful death?"

Now let's move to the next step: Then it would not be sinful to pray that, say, Donald Trump were to die quickly and painlessly, rather than suffer a lingering, painful death?

See what I mean?

The trick is to do what Ayn Rand called context-dropping, only right from the start.

Quote: rxwine

Have you or FrGamble or anyone else given as much thought to every other religion as you do to the one you believe in.

For instance, I don't think even most Buddhists can achieve Buddhist level enlightenment, but until you spent years trying, you're lazy.

Too bad, huh.

Go fish.

Yes I have including atheism and they all miss the mark. Can't speak for Gamble though.

Quote: pew

Yes I have including atheism and they all miss the mark. .

No you haven't or you wouldn't make
such a statement. There is no 'mark'
to miss, what mark are you talking
about.

Quote:

Siddhartha then made his way to a place near Bodh Gaya in India, where he found a suitable site for meditation. There he remained, emphasizing a meditation called “space-like concentration on the Dharmakaya” in which he focused single-pointedly on the ultimate nature of all phenomena. After training in this meditation for six years he realized that he was very close to attaining full enlightenment, and so he walked to Bodh Gaya where, on the full moon day of the fourth month of the lunar calendar, he seated himself beneath the Bodhi Tree in the meditation posture and vowed not to rise from meditation until he had attained perfect enlightenment. With this determination he entered the space-like concentration on the Dharmakaya.

http://www.aboutbuddha.org/english/life-of-buddha-4.htm/

Quote: Evenbob

But atheists have no dogma, nothing we
have to be right about.

You keep trying to say this but you can't escape the fact that you as an atheist believe there is no God. I would want to distance myself from such a false idea as well but you would be more honest if you accepted that and defended it or even better reject it.

Quote: Evenbob

Wrong! When something doesn't exist, all
the experts on it are always right all the time
because none of them can be proven wrong.

Please think about what you are saying. If God did not exist than every expert would be wrong all the time because their foundational premise would be incorrect. Also please remember just because you cannot "prove" someone wrong in a mathematical way does not mean you cannot show it to be false. I can't prove to you there are no unicorns on the moon, but I can demonstrate enough to clearly show that a belief in said unicorns is false.

I think because you are on the losing side of reason and logic you never really want to engage in showing me why you think there is no God. You simply say it can't be proven like it is a math equation. You blather on about the lack of evidence and ignore any evidence or logical argument shown to you. All the while you never provide any evidence or coherent argument for your own beliefs.

Quote:

And atheism has no logic, it just relies on
proof and evidence. Lack of either in this
case just makes us wander away in the other
direction.

Please for the love of all that is good and holy in this world provide for me proof and/or evidence that there is no God. Anything, even a scrap or scintilla of evidence, please! If not just wander away in the other direction.

Quote: rxwine

Have you or FrGamble or anyone else given as much thought to every other religion as you do to the one you believe in.

For instance, I don't think even most Buddhists can achieve Buddhist level enlightenment, but until you spent years trying, you're lazy.

Too bad, huh.

Go fish.

I have given a good amount of thought in to many of the other world religions and even denominations of my own Christian faith. I've taken more comparative religion courses than I can count and on my own studied them. I wouldn't say it takes years trying to understand these other religions for me to find out there is something lacking or deficient in them. Again this is for me, but any religion in which God remains distant and aloof is not the kind of God I want to love and worship. In fact I wonder if such a conception of God can truly be loved. Even a distant God who remains a positive encouragement like a divine cheerleader for us in the skies seems very lacking to me. How does this God know me? What does such a God understand about what it is to be human? Has this God ever had to endure pain, temptation, suffering? What can a God in heaven know about the reality of death? How can I personally know and be known by a God who is so different from me? Every religion except Christianity doesn't have in my opinion any good answers to these questions.

Quote: Nareed

I think the Socratic method is manipulative.

No way, the Socratic method done honestly and openly is one of the best ways to discovering truth.

Quote:

Let's revisit the original question: "Question: is it sinful to pray to pray for someone to die quickly and without pain, rather than suffer a lingering, painful death?"

Now let's move to the next step: Then it would not be sinful to pray that, say, Donald Trump were to die quickly and painlessly, rather than suffer a lingering, painful death?

See what I mean?

Not really. Your original question is an either or type of question. You are contrasting a painless quick death with a long and painful one. In this case anyone would chose the painless and quick death. It would not be sinful to pray that any person, whenever it would be when he would meet his maker, would die painlessly and quickly. You seem to be asking it is okay to pray that someone would die before their time? For that I would say No.

The other thing about the Socratic method is that it is demanding in its specificity.