Seriously, why? Even if that particular god should turn out to be real, if it does that, it is unworthy of the slightest bit of respect.

It's an artistic rendition of possible consequences.

If we don't like the consequences of our choices, just call it "evil" and "indecent?"

To worship a God (which one?), or to suffer through eternity? Some choice.

after you've already made that choice?

I guess you just wait and find out, like all the rest of us.

If there is a God, I'm betting my soul that he is not an asshole. If your god is an asshole, then too bad for you.

But perhaps you violated the intended "spirit" of the post.

That is one of the points made by the OP. Children are indoctrinated very early for the most part, they don't choose that for themselves. It's done that way because it works. A child who is raised by Muslims is unlikely to become a Christian, a child who is raised by Christians is unlikely to become a Sikh, and so on.

Anyway, please reread my post, and you'll see that I didn't call anything "evil" and "indecent". I did ask a question, which you have not answered.

We assume responsibility for the choices we make.

Christianity didn't just pop up as a worldwide phenomena foisted onto all the children.

Variants of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism are as common as the general term.

The OP called Christianity "evil" and you said "decent" people wouldn't support it.

I called religion evil, I didn't single out Christianity.

There is a pattern here.

There's absolutely a pattern here.

A pattern of denial when I can read the OP and what you write.

I asked why decent people worship a god that does what is shown in the picture you posted. You still haven't answered.

I can read.

Decent people don't generally idolize and support cruel and bloodthirsty dictators who torture people. Many Christians believe eternal torture is their god's punishment for any sin, no matter how minor. The question remains. Why would any decent person worship such a god?

God is a "cruel and bloodthirsty dictator who tortures people?"

What possible conversation do you want to have if this is where you start? Pointless and ridiculous.

But - since we are supposed to be a tolerant and inclusive set of people, I will continue to support tolerance and inclusion, with understanding.

We may not agree on everything, but we can agree on some things, and that is what we should be looking for.

Not that it changed anyone's mind, but they do have answers to that sort of thing and are willing to talk to about them.

who engages in the torture of human beings. I consider those who do so to be cruel and bloodthirsty. That principle remains constant for me whether the torturer is a person or a deity, real or imaginary. I take it you don't agree.

I am also biased against anyone who approves of torture and who supports those who engage in it. I don't understand how a decent person could do that. That principle remains constant for me whether the torturer is a person or a deity, real or imaginary. I take it you don't agree.

Maybe you can explain to me how that picture you posted upthread doesn't depict the torture of a human being. Or, perhaps you can convince me that sometimes torture is a good and righteous thing. In the meantime, I have to admit I am indeed biased. Guilty as charged.

That's convincing for you? Allow me to help you out.

Every thinking person ever rolled their eyes when they saw you make that argument. Even South Park helped you out.

But yes, if your either/or choice is determined by cartoons or cartoonists, I'd worry about that bet!

what your picture of someone burning in flames and "I sure hope you're right" means then?

Interesting to see how you make that "Not Pascal's Wager."

The "Art" featured in the OP has accompaying commentary, which sure sounds like a choice has been made.

You post was "I sure hope you're right" and then contained a picture of someone burning in flames.

You just claimed "you are providing the commentary" but YOU put "I sure hope you're right" in the post. That's on you. So...

How is "I sure hope you're right" and a picture of someone burning in flames NOT Pascal's Wager. What does it mean beyond "Art" which is just a bullshit answer. Artists have intent.

but they have no control over the perception of each individual.

Some people may see a threat.

Some people may see a fairy tale.

Some people may see a symbolic representation of an eternity separated from the presence of the divine.

You apparently see something about "Pascal's Wager." I don't.

Fine. I think it's clear to everyone what happened here. I expected no less. Thanks for coming through.

Just a sort of general “I’m saved and you’re not, neener neener” smugness. Also expressed as “why do you care, unbeliever?”

I would ask you to show exactly where you read this, but we all know the answer.

is when we start playing the children's game "20 Questions." Ad nauseum.

And then when we decline to play - since we're not, like, employees or something - they declare victory!

If one has all the answers, what is the point of all the questions?

If the choice has been made, why do they feign interest?

And I have been humiliated as well. Humiliated so often that I can no longer dig out from the giant pit of humiliation and defeat.

Because it was.

It was in response to me asking for an explanation of why it wasn't Pascal's Wager. And, for the record, it was dead on to the response I've gotten so far. So, no, it wasn't straw man construction. It was accurate and predictive. And right.

So, I've answered your questions. How is the response with the picture of the person burning in flames and "I hope you're right" NOT Pascal's Wager?

I trust that you realize that. As was my response, which was:

They probably want to work on that, then.

And the pictures in the OP made some pretty clear points about religion. That aren't just "bashing" religion. Or do you deny that religions often spread their faith to other countries rather than actually feeding them. The RCC could sell a small fraction of their art collection and feed a good many people for a good many years. But they instead choose to tell people in countries with high AIDS rates that condoms make AIDS worse. But, yeah, it's just religion bashing.

and on what constitutes actual dialogue. It is difficult to start dialogue with an insult.

If propaganda is to your taste, post it by all means. Some of us prefer actual debate and nuance.

Are you going to comment this to the other piece of art in this thread?

Just insulting and debasing other people's beliefs as evil and unthinking is not the only perspective.

This is considered actual insight and representative of critical thinking in some circles.

You've used it a bunch recently.

Please enlighten me.

I'd hope you know what it means.

The Instant Pot one I might unjoin since it dominates my feed a lot of days. Also in one for the high school I went to. I'm in a couple atheist/free thought ones. There is a lot more actual discussion going on there than here most times--contrary to what you seem to think.

Confirmed by the other poster.

Just lashing out, then singing in harmony.

Coming from you, that's the funniest thing I've ever read on DU.

You refuse to answer questions. When someone demolishes a point of yours, you simply declare they "misframed" something but won't explain what. If you want actual debate, THEN START PARTICIPATING.

Art or propaganda?

But the poster illustrations in the original thread qualify as poster work.

indifferent about being touched by God in this. God id really stretching to reach him and Adam is kind of "whatever".