Surviving the rapture (hypothetical)

[TheMaskedGecko]

No idea if this is serious enough to go here.

So all this talk of the rapture (which I've now officially survived) made me wonder this: assuming I can't get to heaven, where would the best place to go if I knew a massive earthquake was on the way? Anyone know?

[EvilDuckie]

I'd try and stay clear of anything that might collapse and bury me (buildings have a tendency to doing that, especially if they're not earthquake-proofed). Reasonably close to a location with medical supplies, food and tools so that if you survive, you can try and make yourself useful.

[TheMaskedGecko]

But what about the merits of being on a road, which could potentially crack or soil which could sift and bury me? Or at the top of a hill, where I could end up falling to my death or in a valley, risking being buried by a landslide?

[mmmcannibalism]

Do we mean surviving the collapse of society or literally just surviving a giant earthquake? If its just the earthquake the middle of a cornfield seems pretty damn safe.

[TheMaskedGecko]

I hadn't thought about the whole end of society thing. That could be interesting. What would we do in that 100 or so days before the universe collapses?

[lutzj]

Isn't the Rapture unsurvivable, almost by definition?

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

The reason for the great earthquake is, I think, supposed to be the vast numbers of the dead crawling out of the dirt. So, I would say, one of those planes that can land on the sea. What is the longest amount of time spent in space?

[Zamfir]

If the rapture came, I guess the appropriate response would be to admit I had been wrong, convert to fundi-ism and start praying for forgiveness.

[sourmìlk]

If the rapture came, I guess the appropriate response would be to admit I had been wrong, convert to fundi-ism and start praying for forgiveness.

I admire your your humbleness. My ego would get in the way: I'd say that if there existed a god that punished people for eternity because they didn't believe in something for which there was no evidence of its existence, he could suck it. Or maybe the immorality of sending myself, a relatively innocent person, to hell would far outweigh the immorality of flattering somebody who would send me, a relatively innocent person, to hell.

[Enokh]

Oh hell no: despite my moral objections, if the choices are "spend an eternity in hell being tortured" or "offer up some lip-service to this God", I'll absolutely pick the latter. Though, the latter might not actually be an option, as He/She might want true service/faith/whatever.

[Zamfir]

I admire your your humbleness. My ego would get in the way: I'd say that if there existed a god that punished people for eternity because they didn't believe in something for which there was no evidence of its existence, he could suck it. Or maybe the immorality of sending myself, a relatively innocent person, to hell would far outweigh the immorality of flattering somebody who would send me, a relatively innocent person, to hell.

But seeing yourself as "relatively innocent" is only possible because the framework you use to judge your innocence is not obviously wrong. The fundies claim it is wrong, but you have no reason to believe them any more than others. But if the rapture came, the fundies would turn out to be right on a lot of stuff.

In particular, they would be right that there exists a being that is powerful beyond our understanding, who knows our every move, understands our motivations, and who uses that knowledge to make clear and explicit ethical judgements.

Right now, the question is "Are my ethical judgements at least as good as those of the fundies", which might well be true. But after the rapture the question would become "Are my ethical judgements better than those of the clearly existing God". I don't think your arrogance could withstand that question, especially with Hell as not-so-subtle motivation to become humble.

[sourmìlk]

Right now, the question is "Are my ethical judgements at least as good as those of the fundies", which might well be true. But after the rapture the question would become "Are my ethical judgements better than those of the clearly existing God". I don't think your arrogance could withstand that question, especially with Hell as not-so-subtle motivation to become humble.

Nobody said the God had to be absolutely right. There is a certain amount of objectivity in morality, and if God ignores that then he's wrong. To say he's right because he's God is just ad-Hominem (or more accurately, ad-Dium).

[Zamfir]

Nobody said the God had to be absolutely right. There is a certain amount of objectivity in morality, and if God ignores that then he's wrong. To say he's right because he's God is just ad-Hominem (or more accurately, ad-Dium).

I don't think "nobody" really fits here, there are boatloads of people who say that god is always right. But more to the point, even a fallible god is so much smarter and knowledgeable than any person that it would be highly dubious to question his judgements.

It would be like using the ethical framework of a 2-year old, on the ground that adults are not always absolutely right either. But then a million times worse.

[sourmìlk]

Nobody said the God had to be absolutely right. There is a certain amount of objectivity in morality, and if God ignores that then he's wrong. To say he's right because he's God is just ad-Hominem (or more accurately, ad-Dium).

I don't think "nobody" really fits here, there are boatloads of people who say that god is always right. But more to the point, even a fallible god is so much smarter and knowledgeable than any person that it would be highly dubious to question his judgements.

It would be like using the ethical framework of a 2-year old, on the ground that adults are not always absolutely right either. But then a million times worse.

Since when does god even have to be slightly intelligent?

[Wodashin]

Nobody said the God had to be absolutely right. There is a certain amount of objectivity in morality, and if God ignores that then he's wrong. To say he's right because he's God is just ad-Hominem (or more accurately, ad-Dium).

I don't think "nobody" really fits here, there are boatloads of people who say that god is always right. But more to the point, even a fallible god is so much smarter and knowledgeable than any person that it would be highly dubious to question his judgements.

It would be like using the ethical framework of a 2-year old, on the ground that adults are not always absolutely right either. But then a million times worse.

Since when does god even have to be slightly intelligent?

Arguing moral authority over an all powerful being is somewhat silly, no? God would be the moral authority. If it were so commanded that the color purple was evil, it would be evil. It's its universe and its rules. My house, my rules. If there is undeniable proof of a God, it is a god. If it's the God of Christianity, you're screwed if you think you can get the moral or intellectual high ground on something that invented the universe on a whim.

[sourmìlk]

Nobody said the God had to be absolutely right. There is a certain amount of objectivity in morality, and if God ignores that then he's wrong. To say he's right because he's God is just ad-Hominem (or more accurately, ad-Dium).

I don't think "nobody" really fits here, there are boatloads of people who say that god is always right. But more to the point, even a fallible god is so much smarter and knowledgeable than any person that it would be highly dubious to question his judgements.

It would be like using the ethical framework of a 2-year old, on the ground that adults are not always absolutely right either. But then a million times worse.

Since when does god even have to be slightly intelligent?

Arguing moral authority over an all powerful being is somewhat silly, no? God would be the moral authority. If it were so commanded that the color purple was evil, it would be evil. It's its universe and its rules. My house, my rules. If there is undeniable proof of a God, it is a god. If it's the God of Christianity, you're screwed if you think you can get the moral or intellectual high ground on something that invented the universe on a whim.

Since when does might make right?

[Izawwlgood]

Sourmilk, seriously? You're arguing that the event that would prove the existence of an omnipotent God wasn't proof that he was omnipotent. This is the definition of obnoxious.

[sourmìlk]

Sourmilk, seriously? You're arguing that the event that would prove the existence of an omnipotent God wasn't proof that he was omnipotent. This is the definition of obnoxious.

Why does the event prove he's omnipotent? Doesn't it just prove that a) he's capable of causing a rapture, and b) is able to make judgments about everybody. Also, even if he were omnipotent in this case, that just means all powerful, not all knowing or having perfect critical thought.

[Izawwlgood]

So, in the face of a divine being coming and taking those who have lived in accordance to it's divine plan, and demonstrating supernatural powers, and standing in judgement of those who have NOT lived in accordance to his plan, you would tell it to go fuck itself because you aren't certain it's omnipotent or what it says it is?

[cpt]

If there turns out to be a god, and you and it have differing opinions about morality, it doesn't matter who has the "right" opinion, because you are the one who will end up tormented in hell. As is stated above, god's "house" -> god's rules.

[sourmìlk]

So, in the face of a divine being coming and taking those who have lived in accordance to it's divine plan, and demonstrating supernatural powers, and standing in judgement of those who have NOT lived in accordance to his plan, you would tell it to go fuck itself because you aren't certain it's omnipotent or what it says it is?

Yeah, because I can show that his moral code is impractical and contrary to human happiness.

If there turns out to be a god, and you and it have differing opinions about morality, it doesn't matter who has the "right" opinion, because you are the one who will end up tormented in hell. As is stated above, god's "house" -> god's rules.

Might != Right

[cpt]

If there turns out to be a god, and you and it have differing opinions about morality, it doesn't matter who has the "right" opinion, because you are the one who will end up tormented in hell. As is stated above, god's "house" -> god's rules.

Might != Right

My point is that it doesn't matter if might == right.
Might == you going to hell

[sourmìlk]

If there turns out to be a god, and you and it have differing opinions about morality, it doesn't matter who has the "right" opinion, because you are the one who will end up tormented in hell. As is stated above, god's "house" -> god's rules.

Might != Right

My point is that it doesn't matter if might == right.
Might == you going to hell

Yeah, okay. But if God's moral system is fucked up and arbitrary then I should just act morally instead of guessing what he wants. If he sends me to hell then fuck him, he's wrong to do so.

[Izawwlgood]

So, in the face of a divine being coming and taking those who have lived in accordance to it's divine plan, and demonstrating supernatural powers, and standing in judgement of those who have NOT lived in accordance to his plan, you would tell it to go fuck itself because you aren't certain it's omnipotent or what it says it is?

Yeah, because I can show that his moral code is impractical and contrary to human happiness.

If there turns out to be a god, and you and it have differing opinions about morality, it doesn't matter who has the "right" opinion, because you are the one who will end up tormented in hell. As is stated above, god's "house" -> god's rules.

Might != Right

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the arrogance this requires; if the being that is purportedly responsible for the creation of us were to show it's face, you would assume that you know better than it and try and convince it that purging non-believers like yourself in fire and brimstone and suffering was wrong, because might doesn't make right?

Dude, your morality is irrelevant when God is sending you to hell for not being moral within the framework of Gods morality.

I'm as atheist as they come, but even I have the common sense to admit that I was wrong in the face of PROOF THAT I WAS WRONG. This isn't a matter of 'I think my morality is better than your morality' because the divine being that's just revealed itself makes the rules.

EDIT: I'm all for standing up for what you believe, but the point is, belief in this regard is IN the divine being. You can't say there is no proof or reason to believe in the divine being when he's standing right there throwing you into hell for not believing in him.

[Silknor]

Sourmilk, seriously? You're arguing that the event that would prove the existence of an omnipotent God wasn't proof that he was omnipotent. This is the definition of obnoxious.

Why does the event prove he's omnipotent? Doesn't it just prove that a) he's capable of causing a rapture, and b) is able to make judgments about everybody. Also, even if he were omnipotent in this case, that just means all powerful, not all knowing or having perfect critical thought.

Well if you're going to argue that, why even stick to the idea that the rapture proves there is a God? Our society might not be capable of it currently, but it's certainly conceivable that in time we'll have the technology to create a massive earthquake and make people float high into the sky and disappear at some point while not being detectable by someone with a lower level of technology. If the rapture had occurred when predicted, this would not have been what I was thinking, but none of the technology for a more advanced society to fake a rapture seems like it would obviously violate the laws of physics.

[cpt]

Yeah, okay. But if God's moral system is fucked up and arbitrary then I should just act morally instead of guessing what he wants. If he sends me to hell then fuck him, he's wrong to do so.

This is the problem with the whole religion situation. Half the rules that are divinely decreed seem fairly arbitrary and suspiciously like they were invented a few hundred years ago by people, and there are millions who take them as the will of Omnipotent Being X. The good part of it all being made up is that this rapture situation will remain hypothetical and you can keep your middle finger raised to the Man.

[sourmìlk]

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the arrogance this requires; if the being that is purportedly responsible for the creation of us were to show it's face, you would assume that you know better than it and try and convince it that purging non-believers like yourself in fire and brimstone and suffering was wrong, because might doesn't make right?

Correct. Unless god can show that he's morally right, his power is irrelevant to his moral judgments.

Dude, your morality is irrelevant when God is sending you to hell for not being moral within the framework of Gods morality.

It might be irrelevant, but it will still be correct.

I'm as atheist as they come, but even I have the common sense to admit that I was wrong in the face of PROOF THAT I WAS WRONG. This isn't a matter of 'I think my morality is better than your morality' because the divine being that's just revealed itself makes the rules.

And if his rules are immoral, then they're immoral.

Well if you're going to argue that, why even stick to the idea that the rapture proves there is a God?

Doesn't God (or his son) physically appear in the rapture?

[Izawwlgood]

It might be irrelevant, but it will still be correct.

You're not understanding this; God would cast into hell those who are non-believers. If you are standing by your non-belief as correct in the face of God throwing you into hell, you are doing it wrong.

[sourmìlk]

It might be irrelevant, but it will still be correct.

You're not understanding this; God would cast into hell those who are non-believers. If you are standing by your non-belief as correct in the face of God throwing you into hell, you are doing it wrong.

Yeah, I guess I'd flatter him. He'd still be wrong.

[Silknor]

Well if you're going to argue that, why even stick to the idea that the rapture proves there is a God?

Doesn't God (or his son) physically appear in the rapture?

I thought that didn't happen for 5 months from now, at the end of the times. Might be off on that though.

[TheMaskedGecko]

But isnt the rapture God cutting his losses, taking his believers and sodding off. If so then no amount of lip service would help. Our only hope is to invent time trial, find out a way to survive past the end of the universe or to invent a weapon that'll work on the astral plane and take the fight to him.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

SOURMILK and RICHARD GARFIELD are sitting in RICHARD GARFIELD'S kitchen, playing the very first game of Magic: the Gathering.
SOURMILK plays a creature and tries to attack with it that turn
Richard Garfield
Hold up! What do you think you're doing?

sourmìlk
I'm attacking with my creature

Richard Garfield
Aww hell naw!

sourmìlk
Huh‽

Richard Garfield
It has summoning sickness, and thus cannot attack until the next turn

sourmìlk
The hell it can't
SOURMILK taps his creature again

Richard Garfield
You can't attack with that creature this turn; doing so violates the rules.

sourmìlk
That's funny, 'cause I'm pretty sure I am. Oh shit, did I just break your rules? I guess they aren't as perfect as you thought they were, Dick.

Richard Garfield
facepalm

[sourmìlk]

I don't play magic, but I think I followed that.

It would go more like this:

SOURMILK and RICHARD GARFIELD are sitting in RICHARD GARFIELD'S kitch, playing the very first game of Magic: the Gathering.
SOURMILK plays a creature and tries to attack with it that turn.
Richard Garfield
Hold up! What do you think you're doing?

sourmilk
I'm attacking with my creature.

Richard Garfield
Aww hell naw!

sourmilk
huh?

Richard Garfield
It has summoning sickness, and thus cannot attack until the next turn.

sourmilk
That's an idiotic rule.

Richard Garfield
Doesn't matter. I made the game I get to decide the rules.

sourmilk
Sure, but that doesn't mean you did so intelligently.

Richard Garfield
Fuck it, I'm not gonna do this with you again.

sourmilk
Same, why would I want to participate in a game this idiotic?

[Zamfir]

I think in the more appropriate analogy, sourmilk is the creature card.

[sourmìlk]

I think in the more appropriate analogy, sourmilk is the creature card.

mind = blown.

Seriously, I have no idea what to think of that.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

God hates masturbation

[Zamfir]

Every sperm is sacred/
every sperm is great/
If a sperm is wasted/
God gets quite irate

[sourmìlk]

Every sperm is sacred/
every sperm is great/
If a sperm is wasted/
God gets quite irate

Great, now the song is stuck in my head. seriously though, if every sperm were sacred you would think that God a) wouldn't give humans the urge to masturbate, and b) wouldn't make it so that millions of sperm are needed to impregnate a women.

[KingofMadCows]

I think the more appropriate analogy is that earth is prison, god is the 250 pound muscle bound leader of the biggest gang and we're his bitch.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right, and arguing against him is like arguing that a square has three sides.

If somebody shows me that a square can have three sides, my mind will be well and truly blown.