If religious people truly believe heaven is real...

[AqD]

I just read that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20106768

HRW has released pictures showing mass damage that occurred in the town of Kyaukpyu, western Burma, some time between 9th and 25th October. HRW claims 800 homes and houseboats have been destroyed, and at least 64 people killed in the state in the last week - although it says it expects the real figure to be much higher.

The victims are Muslim Rohingyas, targeted by non-Muslims, mostly Buddhist. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have already fled to Bangladesh, which has been saying for some time already that its ability to cope with them is already overwhelmed - refugees are now being refused entry at the border.

And then I realized their reponse is quite illogical!

You see, if they truly believe heaven is real, why would they run away? Why wouldn't they eagerly and happily die defending their religion when it is under threat? It'd be a ticket to heaven, a shortcut to leave the terrible world and all the misery? Who wants to live here forever if he can go to heaven? I'm quite sure nobody would be sent to hell for dying defending their God! (PS: they're by no means transgressors)


So why, why did they run away as happened most of time in history when people found their belief causing them trouble and even threats to life? Does this indicate to us that most religious persons are in fact unbelievers?

[squirel]

Does Islam require them to stay behind and die?

[NikeBG]

Does this indicate to us that most religious persons are in fact unbelievers?

I believe so. I think most people are religious not because of faith, but because of tradition. The truly faithful ones are a minority.

[truth1337]

So why, why did they run away as happened most of time in history when people found their belief causing them trouble and even threats to life? Does this indicate to us that most religious persons are in fact unbelievers?

The idea in most religions has been that if you seek death in battle, rather than seek victory and have death as a consequence of death being the best way of helping to achieve victory - you won't go to heaven.

That kind of matches what is most rational from an evolutionary point of view - if the advantages for your people as a whole if you win are great enough, then your own death may mean people more like you will walk on this earth in a thousand years from now, than if your own cowardice makes you survive as an individual but most of your people died, since you'd either have none to have offspring with, or be forced to mix and then be diluted into non-existence/extinction within a few generations.

That is why, contrary to popular belief or as taught by extremist marxist media, suicide bombings etc can actually be rational from an evolutionary point of view even though it seems like "Darwin awards" material.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The idea in most religions has been that if you seek death in battle, rather than seek victory and have death as a consequence of death being the best way of helping to achieve victory - you won't go to heaven.

That kind of matches what is most rational from an evolutionary point of view - if the advantages for your people as a whole if you win are great enough, then your own death may mean people more like you will walk on this earth in a thousand years from now, than if your own cowardice makes you survive as an individual but most of your people died, since you'd either have none to have offspring with, or be forced to mix and then be diluted into non-existence/extinction within a few generations.

That is why, contrary to popular belief or as taught by extremist marxist media, suicide bombings etc can actually be rational from an evolutionary point of view even though it seems like "Darwin awards" material.

an intelligent post from truth. I'm impressed. +rep.

[AqD]

The idea in most religions has been that if you seek death in battle, rather than seek victory and have death as a consequence of death being the best way of helping to achieve victory - you won't go to heaven.

But it's NOT in the example I gave. They didn't start it and didn't want it. They're victims and they could 1) run away, or 2) stand for their religion regardless of the consequence, and if they die for the latter choice (not seeking death - it's not suicide), they should have nothing to lose!


Also, if they don't believe their belief that much and they don't even consider it worthy of defending, why wouldn't they just pretend to abandon it at gunpoint?

Perhaps they feel they have some kind of purpose to live.

Why would a religious person, when given the opportunity to enter heaven, choose to live in this aka earth?

Beside that the only people who are certain about what happens after death are atheists like you. Perhaps the odd Islamic suicide bomber as well but you're in that kind of league.

I thought it's more certain to religious people because afterlife is either in heaven or hell? And if you won't go to hell, it'd be heaven for sure and they should (according to simple logic) welcome death although not to invite death themselves?

God gave us a gift that is life, ya aint suppose to throw it away without an overriding moral reason [and certainly not with the intention of earning 'brownie points'].

To stand for they believe is not a reason good enough for Muslims? Then why did Muhammad fight when the Meccans came to them? He could have run away all across the arabia to somewhere else, hiding for his entire life!

[Closetu]

To stand for they believe is not a reason good enough for Muslims? Then why did Muhammad fight when the Meccans came to them?

maybe because he had a sword and an army or two

were holocaust jews lacked in faith because they "couldn't" fight back? compare that to israeli army today. hundreds of thousands of refugees could mean hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children. Running rampant and thirst for blood don't mean you are being true to your religion.

[Biggieboy]

maybe because he had a sword and an army or two

were holocaust jews lacked in faith because they "couldn't" fight back? compare that to israeli army today. hundreds of thousands of refugees could mean hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children. Running rampant and thirst for blood don't mean you are being true to your religion.

I find your question quite lacking. They could've fought back (and lose horribly), some even did, but being unable to win the fight is of no real relevance. If they die defending their faith and go to heaven, surely that's worth giving up your life in this realm?

Also, running rampant etc. depends on your religion, if you follow their holy books. A Jain killing people (or any living creature in their case) is not handling according to their texts and beliefs. A Muslim who kills infidels (any non-muslim basically) is hard to defend for other muslims, because they ARE acting upon their holy book. I'm not claiming all muslims are jihadists, that would be untrue, I'm saying that actions made by believers should be compared to their teachings to see if they are "being true to their religion".

[Closetu]

^
My point wasn't who wins or loses. The OP raised a question that it's the lack of their faith is what's causing them to flee. But given a different circumstance, like proper weapons and training, better food and shelter, or even another place and time, the table could be easily turned. Shouldn't it be everyone's priority and moral obligation (regardless of religious difference) to seek a safe haven for his/her families and friends from facing a horrible and violent death from a lynching mob? If they want to regroup and fight back/take revenge after they know their families are safe, then that doesn't sound so reckless even if it's suicidal, and still get to go to their heaven.

And from what I understand, jihadists are known to blow themselves up in a market place, hospital, hotel, etc., regardless of who's there, so basically they are killing muslims too, so I don't think they are following their holy book right, even by their own standard of killing infidels.

[Enzo]

I thought it's more certain to religious people because afterlife is either in heaven or hell? And if you won't go to hell, it'd be heaven for sure and they should (according to simple logic) welcome death although not to invite death themselves?

I don't think anyone who believes in more than just this life is absolutely 100% certain about where they will end up else they wouldn't require faith to begin with. Even if they did know for certain they wouldn't necessarily welcome being removed from this life while they have people they care about here while they still have things to do and they value life in general. They are humans just like yourself this is something to appreciate rather than making observations about how they don't seem to be overjoyed by their own or their loved ones death. Perhaps their faith will sustain them and enable them to cope with adversity better than an atheist who in the same situation would break down into a more complete despair. Perhaps an atheist would be more likely to to turn to alcohol, drug abuse and suicide.

[MaximiIian]

Why would a religious person, when given the opportunity to enter heaven, choose to live in this aka earth?

a) not all religions operate with a distinct "good" afterlife, or the idea that Earth is an awful place.
b) even then, not all of them operate on that afterlife being a one-time-only thing.
c) some religions go on the idea of there still being work to do in life, e.g. certain forms of Buddhism that emphasise the notion of helping others achieve nirvana before achieving it for oneself.

[Valden]

The idea in most religions has been that if you seek death in battle, rather than seek victory and have death as a consequence of death being the best way of helping to achieve victory - you won't go to heaven.

That kind of matches what is most rational from an evolutionary point of view - if the advantages for your people as a whole if you win are great enough, then your own death may mean people more like you will walk on this earth in a thousand years from now, than if your own cowardice makes you survive as an individual but most of your people died, since you'd either have none to have offspring with, or be forced to mix and then be diluted into non-existence/extinction within a few generations.

That is why, contrary to popular belief or as taught by extremist marxist media, suicide bombings etc can actually be rational from an evolutionary point of view even though it seems like "Darwin awards" material.

The problem is, we are not like other animals; human personal autonomy conflicts with the idea of some kind of 'hive mind' whereby we all do things ultimately for the benefit of the species. The problem with your reasoning is the same as the reasoning behind utilitarianism: we are simply in no position to truly know the long term consequences of any action. For all we know the deaths you speak of may lead to more deaths, not less, in a thousand years. It simply isn't something we can reasonably speculate on. For instance:

The classic train track dilemma. A train is coming that cannot stop and the track forks two ways. On rout A, thirty wounded people are lying on the track, on Rout B there are sixty. Do you redirect the train to rout A to save the sixty, or let it continue down rout B and save the thirty? For the sake of argument these are the only two options. Save the many or save the few.

Now, a utilitarian might say that we obviously save the many because they will provide greater utility than the few. In the short term, yes, we can reasonably predict that greater utility will be provided by the greater number of people. But what about in twenty years time? Some of those people could go on to commit murders, fall into alcoholism, die young, contract disease, not contribute to society at all, whereas the 'few' in this example could go on to be far more socially beneficial in the long run. We are simply unequipped to answer the seemingly obvious question, save the many or save the few? In the long run we do not know which group will provide the most utility.

So given that the lasting consequences of an action are just so unknown -indeed, unknowable- to us, how does the argument that any action is beneficial in the short term to the species prove that we behave in accordance to an evolutionary survival model? For all we know in the long run the said actions have the opposite effect. How do our survival instincts know the long term benefits? Does the evolutionary model hold them to be omniscient? I think not.

I do find a lot of this 'evolutionary psychology' quite unconvincing; I think you would be hard pressed to empirically prove human behaviour is purely the result of some hard wired species-wide survival instinct, and not merely individual whim. There may be coincidental short term benefits to the species, but that does not prove the action was undertaken for the survival of the species! We are not biological automatons, even if a niche of scientific realists have wet dreams about it.

[Enzo]

Perhaps they feel they have some kind of purpose to live. Beside that the only people who are certain about what happens after death are atheists like you. Perhaps the odd Islamic suicide bomber as well but you're in that kind of league.

[Biggieboy]

Perhaps they feel they have some kind of purpose to live. Beside that the only people who are certain about what happens after death are atheists like you. Perhaps the odd Islamic suicide bomber as well but you're in that kind of league.

Wow, comparing atheists to suicide bombers... You might wanna rephrase that. Ad hominems are not a way to win an argument.

And you still don't get what atheism means do you? Or what they stand for?

[Enzo]

Wow, comparing atheists to suicide bombers... You might wanna rephrase that. Ad hominems are not a way to win an argument.

It's not an ad hominem I'm comparing the level of certainity apparently involved.

And you still don't get what atheism means do you? Or what they stand for?

I think it's you who doesn't understand what it means. Atheism is the product of something called scientific naturalism, and it is a philosophy. If you keep trying to argue you're not going to learn anything. I recommend you read Epicurus and On The Nature of Things by Lucretius. In a nutshell that is the philosophy in question.

[Squiggle]

God gave us a gift that is life, ya aint suppose to throw it away without an overriding moral reason [and certainly not with the intention of earning 'brownie points'].

[Biggieboy]

Right. I now have a second person to ignore.

[Enzo]

I'm only trying to help you understand what atheism actually is but if you don't want to learn, there some books you read besides this sort of thing.




This is a product of mind melting ignorance, no other group of people alive would produce something like this. You wouldn't get a Buddhist writing this kind of thing, or a Muslim or a Hindu. It is possible to attain this level of mind melting ignorance while at the same time being highly intelligent, perhaps someone accomplished in a scientific discipline. Some atheists may be relatively enlightened understand all the issues and implications, understand that they don't know what they don't know like everyone else. But those don't tend to be the Internet crowd. They may also be unaware of the philosophy of scientific naturalism and interested to learn more about it's origins, how it may effect the way they see the world.

[Denny Crane!]

I'm only trying to help you understand what atheism actually is but if you don't want to learn, there some books you read besides this sort of thing.




This is a product of mind melting ignorance, no other group of people alive would produce something like this. You wouldn't get a Buddhist writing this kind of thing, or a Muslim or a Hindu. It is possible to attain this level of mind melting ignorance while at the same time being highly intelligent, perhaps someone accomplished in a scientific discipline. Some atheists may be relatively enlightened understand all the issues and implications, understand that they don't know what they don't know like everyone else. But those don't tend to be the Internet crowd. They may also be unaware of the philosophy of scientific naturalism and interested to learn more about it's origins, how it may effect the way they see the world.

Buddhism at its root is atheistic, sorry to rain on your parade but your rant was ruined by ignorance.

[Enzo]

Buddhism at its root is atheistic, sorry to rain on your parade but your rant was ruined by ignorance.

Buddhism isn't scientific naturalism they just don't believe in a personal God. There is the Buddha Mind or whatever you call it, everything being interconnected and part of the whole. What Jesus taught wasn't really that far removed from the Eastern religions if you really look at what he said. The kingdom of heaven being found within I think is a similar concept to Nirvana. And all this aside one of the core precepts of Buddhism is to respect the religions of others, a book called "The Christian Delusion" doesn't to me seem respectful to the beliefs of Christians. Therefore it would seem that you are the one being ignorant.