╌>

When Hugh Hefner dies, no one will say....

  

Category:  Religion & Ethics

Via:  buzz-of-the-orient  •  8 years ago  •  43 comments

When Hugh Hefner dies, no one will say....

512


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient    8 years ago

Obviously he's not a jihadist terrorist - he doesn't need to murder an infidel to get his 72 virgins in the Garden of Allah. He'll be too worn out to do anything with them.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   8 years ago

For some reason this photo makes me think of Joel Grey in the movie Cabaret , singing this line in the song Wilkommen :

"Rosie, Lulu, Frenchie, Texas, Fritzie... Und Helga.
Each and every one a virgin! You don't believe me?"

source:
 
 
 
Enoch
Masters Quiet
link   Enoch  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   8 years ago

Scholars of the Koran tell me that when someone is Jihadi (struggles with the forces of good and evil within, then finds a way to let the good prevail) they will be rewarded with 72 raisins. 

The words for raisin and virgin are the same, save for a dipthong inversion in the Maquam mode (dialect) of Arabic in which the Koran is written.

No where in the Koran does it promise 72 virgins for any reason, no less the wanton taking of innocent human life.

The value of raisins is that they are already dry, don't spool, and are easily transportable when in a desert fo energy.

For this reason, when terrorist groups look to recruit, they prefer findind disaffected security youth who haven't studied the Koran. It is easier to perform mind contorl on them when they don't know this religion.

E. 

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  Enoch   8 years ago

This changes everything!  Imagine being a jihadist, murdering people at will, and being presented with a pile of raisins in Paradise...  Just desserts!

 
 
 
Enoch
Masters Quiet
link   Enoch  replied to  Dowser   8 years ago

Dear Friend Dowser: The thing of it is that when people terrorize, harm and/or murder, they are not being Jihadi in the traditional and Koranic sense of the term. They are being terrorists, thugs, assailants and/or murderers.  

Being Jihadi means to struggle. The struggle isn't external, political, military or violent, including lethally violent.

The struggle is internal.

Everyone battles between their better and worse sides internally.

We Jewish people do it by fasting, wearing simple clothing, spending the day praying, atoning and repenting.

We have Yomim Ha Noirahim (Days of Awe between Rosh Ha Shanah and Yom Kippur. We strive to make whole those we harmed. To pray, repent, and do charity leading up to our main fast day of Yom Kippur.

Christians often refrain from marital relations, imbibing strong drink, and eating meat during lent. They purify themselves for a great holiday to come on their calendar.  

The themes of addressing ways to bring out the best in us, and find ways to reduce damage we may do if we are not careful to control and redirect negative energies are common themes in many religious, spiritual and secular ethical approaches to life.

Those Muslims who are successfully Jihadi cannot terrorize, hurt or kill anyone, non-Muslims included. That isn't how that plays out in Islam.

The same is true for Jewish and Christian practitioners, among many others leading just lives in diverse ways.         

Truly ethical people who are religious or secular don't terrorize, hurt or murder.

The world will be a better place one repentance and one atonement at a time.

Here is to a better world.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  Enoch   8 years ago

I pray that all of us may see the good things written in the bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc., and take them to heart.  May God, in his infinite wisdom, lead us all into the ways of love and truth.

Love you, dear Enoch!

 
 
 
Enoch
Masters Quiet
link   Enoch  replied to  Dowser   8 years ago

Dear Friend Dowser: I join your prayer.

I would also add that others on this and other blog sites in cyberspace read your last post above with an open mind and soul. 

Your warmth, humanity, generosity of the spirit. love and charity towards all with hatred to none is a shining example of what this site, and all others like it could be.

May the day come when petty partisanship in all its evil forms give way to the virtues you bring to us as a species.

Peace, Abundant Blessings and Harmony to One and All.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  Enoch   8 years ago

Dearest Enoch-- I read your post with tears in my eyes.  It is hard to read words of praise!  Thank you-- I think I am "normal", and there are plenty of those who would dispute that.  I truly believe that most folks are just decent folks, who may differ in opinion, but we're all "neighbors" in this "neighborhood" and we have to get along, to a certain extent.  We have to at least tolerate each other, and recognize the humanity behind their views.  Hard as it is...

Take care today, dear friend, and every day!

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Dowser   8 years ago

My dear friends, Dowser and Enoch,

On a day with my own struggles, I've read your words and your thoughts in them and thank you for your honesty and decency.  If we could all learn, take a breath and re-start, the world might well be a better place.

Thank you.

 
 
 
Enoch
Masters Quiet
link   Enoch  replied to  Spikegary   8 years ago

Dear Friend Spikegary: Welcome home.

First, let me thank you for giving us a great July 4th celebration with your warm company.

Mrs. E. is delighted to meet you.

Thank you for your positive and uplifting sentiment.

Great post.

Your Good Friend, Enoch.

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  Spikegary   8 years ago

Much love to you, spikegary!  The thing to remember is that all of us struggle, every day, to be decent, kind, human beings...  It is a lot of work to be good!  winking

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

When people die they become "beyond caring".  Either they are in "heaven" where there are no cares, or they are no where , where there also are no cares.

On earth everyone has cares. Donald Trump has all the money in the world - does he look like he has no cares?

For unenlightened people, which is pretty much all of us, existence involves disappointment , frustration, sorrow, physical pain, and discord. Not always of course, and for some maybe not much at all, but it is there to some degree.

In the traditional after death "better place", or the nothingness some say follows death,  there are none of these.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

I kind of like the theory of reincarnation - Hugh Hefner would probably reincarnate as a female mink.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

After death you cease to exist. Everything you are or were, every memory, everything you've ever learned every thought you have ever had since the day you were born dies when the brain dies. When the last synapse in your brain turns off, there is nothing left of you but a slowly rotting pile of fat, meat and bones. You only exist in the memories of others, but why should you care? You will be dead and unable to feel any regrets or sadness or happiness. You, what makes you you, goes nowhre. It dies too because You will have ceased to exist.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    8 years ago

After death you cease to exist. Everything you are or were, every memory, everything you've ever learned, every thought you have ever had since the day you were born dies when the brain dies. When the last synapse in your brain turns off, there is nothing left of you but a slowly rotting pile of fat, meat and bones. You only exist in the memories of others, but why should you care? You will be dead and unable to feel any regrets or sadness or happiness. You, what makes you, you, goes nowhere. It dies too because what makes you, you only exists in your brain and that will be dead. You and what made you, you will have ceased to exist completely. When you die there is nothingness, but it won't matter to you, because you'll never experience it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Gee, Randy, that makes me feel so much better. thumbs up

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   8 years ago

I live to serve. thumbs up

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Laugh

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Randy   8 years ago
The nice thing about it is that we're all in the same boat - including every human and animal on earth that was ever born.  Clearly it's nothing to fear, death is just an inescapable aspect of life.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Randy, having never died, nor communicated with anyone that died, you don't "know" what happens after death. You have your atheistic opinion.

Saying that you are 100% sure there is nothing after death makes no more logical sense than someone saying there are pearly gates.

No one knows , any more than anyone knows the makeup of some planet galaxies away that lays undiscovered by us.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Being that fate beyond death is 100% unknowable, as you have alluded, how healthy is it make assumptions that it could be a negative experience?  Hmmm ... why would religions want to propagate such stressful and worrisome outcomes?  Control maybe?

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

It's the only possible logical outcome. Where does what people call the soul reside? The brain. The brain dies. The soul dies. Then is nothingness which you don't get to experience because your brain, which is the ultimate receptor and reactor of feelings and sensations, is not alive to feel them. You're dead. Finished. Done. Life over. Un-alive. Starting to rot.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Very off-topic, but...

Randy, you may be right... but you are doing exactly the same thing that Believers do: you are making pronouncements based on faith, rather than fact. And you are making those pronouncements on a topic which you do not believe exists! You can't get much more illogical than that.

On what basis (scientific evidence, of course  ;-)  ) do you declare that the soul resides in the brain? 

A truly rational skeptic may be agnostic, only. Not outright atheist. Declaring that God does not exist is necessarily a faith-based statement (since it cannot be proven), which is an intellectual contradiction with rationality.

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

On what basis (scientific evidence, of course  ;-)  ) do you declare that the soul resides in the brain?

Because it doesn't appear to reside in the toes (joking!). People once believed that it resided in the heart, yet people who have a heart transplant don't acquire the soul of the person whose heart they received, just as any transplant doesn't hand the soul over from one person to another. Not liver, lungs, kidneys, non of them. The brain is the only possible place that what people call a soul CAN logically reside. It's an accumulation of knowledge that one gathers during their lifetime. That's why we are born not knowing how to speak or walk. They are skills that must be learned. Just as people who believe in a god were not born that was. They were taught it, most likely by parents. Every healthy (non brain injured) born baby is an atheist, a pure atheist, because they were not yet taught the myth. It's our bodies computer and collection of information place. Without it, it is not possible for you to be you. It is not possible to have what people call a soul without their brain.

A truly rational skeptic may be agnostic, only. Not outright atheist. Declaring that God does not exist is necessarily a faith-based statement (since it cannot be proven), which is an intellectual contradiction with rationality.

I could not possibly disagree more. Atheists, pure atheists (otherwise known as "strong atheists"), are not the ones claiming the existence of a mythical creature (for whom or what they have no proof of at all) believe exists. The burden of proof (to paraphrases Dr. Carl Sagan) is on the people making the extraordinary claim and they must produce the extraordinary evidence of the claim and they can't. The atheist has no more burden of proof any more then proving that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I know he does not. People claiming that he does, have to prove it. An atheist can not be expected to provide proof that something does not exist. The people claiming that something does exist have to prove that it exists. I am not a skeptic, I know and yes that is indeed possible. Atheism is not a belief of any kind, for or against. Atheism is the opposite of a belief. It has nothing at all to do with belief one way or another. To an atheist, the existence of a god of some type does not rise to the level of being taken seriously enough to form a belief or non-belief of any kind. The question itself is too absurd to be taken seriously. It's sort of like asking if I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Randy,

You're assuming things. First, that there is a "soul". The term has evolved greatly since the Bible was written. Back then there was no notion of "immortal" attached. It was the spirit of the person, and died with that person. It seems to me to be a pointless complication. Second, you assume that the soul must reside somewhere. If the thing exists, why can it not be independent of all flesh?

My point is that you are adopting notions that are not just theistic, but kinda fundamentalist. Wouldn't it be more logical for a skeptic to contend that there is no "soul", because there is no physical evidence of it?

 

Every healthy (non brain injured) born baby is an atheist, a pure atheist, because they were not yet taught the myth.

This is an assertion that may very well be false. Several studies have shown that our brain chemistry is biased toward faith. "Why" that is so is completely unclear. What would be the Darwinian advantage? It's a fun topic for conjecture!

 

The burden of proof (to paraphrase Dr. Carl Sagan) is on the people making the extraordinary claim and they must produce the extraordinary evidence of the claim and they can't.

The burden of proof is on whoever is trying to persuade. I don't care whether you believe in God. I will never try to convince you that She exists. (IMNAAHO, even God doesn't care what you think, and in any case, don't worry: He surely won't hold disbelief against you   ;-)  ) Since I am not trying to persuade you of anything, I have nothing to prove. 

You are making a claim. You are claiming that God does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. And it is impossible to prove a negative. Your position is based on faith: you believe that God does not exist, although that proposition is impossible to prove. 

 

Don't misunderstand. There's nothing wrong with faith-based knowledge. Most of what we know about the universe is faith-based. We have never seen an atom, but we "know" such things exist. The Sun "obviously" rotates around the Earth... but we have faith in Copernicus, so we know that it does not. Maggots "obviously" arise spontaneously in rotting flesh -- there was nothing there yesterday, and now there are maggots -- but we have faith in Louis Pasteur and all those folks, so we "know" about microscopic life that we have in fact never seen.

Each of us chooses our "prophets"; the people in whom we have confidence, the people whose words we believe, even if we never see the evidence ourselves. Carl Sagan was a very clever fellow, so accepting his word is not a bad choice. But don't ever lose sight of the fact that you are accepting his opinion; you have not personally seen any evidence.

 

This is not just a semantic problem. Saying "I believe that atoms exist" follows exactly the same intellectual processes as "I believe that God exists". In both cases, the speaker has no first-hand evidence to support the proposition. (I personally don't "believe" in divine manifestations in the physical world, so I don't trust anyone who says they've met God.  ;-)  ) In both the atom case and the God case, the speaker accepts the opinion of someone they esteem to be competent on the topic: a preacher or a scientist.

We take things on faith all day long, every day. If we had to have first-hand evidence of everything, we would quickly be catatonic. What's important is to be aware that we don't really "know"; that we are accepting someone's opinion as true; and that the credibility of that someone is essential.

Do I accept what Donald Trump says as "truth"? To what extent? Hillary Clinton? To what extent? We evaluate the credibility of our "prophets" all the time.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

When I used the word "soul" I qualified it with "what people usually refer to as". I used a word that most people understand to make what I was saying clearer. What is obvious in my references was the accumulated knowledge that people gain as they grow up and grow older. I believe that is what most people refer to as a soul. I use the word myself, not for religious reasons, but because it's speaking in a way that is better understood. I suppose I could use the word consciousness and it would be more correct, but less understood. I am not adopting any theistic notions by the use of the word.

Several studies have shown that our brain chemistry is biased toward faith.

Those I would like to see! And see who financed these "studies".

You are making a claim. You are claiming that God does not exist.

I am not making a claim of the belief in a god or not. I am saying that they question of the existence of one is so absurd as to not deserve a belief in or a non-belief in. So again, since as you said, a negative can not be proven, the burden of proof of the existence of such a myth is still on those claiming it. Not on an atheist. An atheist is in no possible way making a statement that has anything to do with a faith or belief. I am sure that there is not a giant block of ice in the middle of our Sun. That is not a statement of belief or faith. It is a statement of fact. If someone thinks otherwise, it is up to them to prove it.

But don't ever lose sight of the fact that you are accepting his opinion; you have not personally seen any evidence.

I am not accepting his opinion. His opinion (in fact he said he was agnostic) is just interesting to me. As is the work of Dr Richard Dawkins or Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson. My own knowledge is something I have come upon myself, after much thought, on my own. Not from the influence of some authors. I do not "accept" their opinions on the existence or non-existence of a god, I just find it interesting to read about them. They are exceptionally good scientists. In the case of Sagan and Tyson, exceptionally good astrophysicists and I enjoy reading their books, like some people enjoy reading crime novels or biographies. When my wife and I go on a cruise (like the end of October!!!) I always bring along something by one of them as light reading (with some wine of course) on the balcony after she goes to sleep. This next one I am going to read Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" (which I have not read yet) and Dawkins' "The God Myth" to reread.

Saying "I believe that atoms exist" follows exactly the same intellectual processes as "I believe that God exists".

Again, I disagree. Atoms have been seen through electron microscopes. We know the exist because we have seen them. No one has seen a god, except for a few people who are locked away.

We take things on faith all day long, every day.

I do also, but not when it comes to the existence of a god. The whole idea is just too silly and ridiculous for me to even bother to believe in or not. I take it on faith that the fuel I put in my car won't ruin the engine or cause it to burst into flames. I take it on faith that the breakfast I had at the deli yesterday won't make sick. However those are human things. If any of them happen they will have been caused by a human being. But in the case of the existence of a god, the question is just too ridiculous for me to assign a belief or non-belief to. To me it's like asking me if I do or do not believe in Leprechauns or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It's just too silly to take seriously.

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

How did a fun article about Hugh Hefner and his many playmates ever turn into a theological discussion? Did I do this with my comment about 72 virgins?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   8 years ago

Maybe I'm strange, but theological discussion is my idea of fun!

Serious discussion of any sort, actually...  thumbs up

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Randy,

I am not making a claim of the belief in a god or not. I am saying that they question of the existence of one is so absurd as to not deserve a belief in or a non-belief in.

"I am saying that..." That's an affirmation. The two phrasings ("the existence of God is an absurd idea" and "God does not exist") are the same, aside from one being ruder than the other. 

 

Sagan, Dawkins, and Degrasse Tyson. Interesting people. But the fact that your "list of acceptable prophets" has only atheists/agnostics tells us that you've got the process turned on its head. You aren't starting with a question (Does God exist?) and then listening to a variety of smart people in order to make up your mind. I think you started with "God does not exist!" and then cherry-picked your prophets to fit that preconception. (Don't worry -- that's how most of us work most of the time. Gut-feeling first, and then an intellectualized backfill cover-up.)

 

Saying "I believe that atoms exist" follows exactly the same intellectual processes as "I believe that God exists".

Again, I disagree. Atoms have been seen through electron microscopes. We know they exist because we have seen them. No one has seen a god, except for a few people who are locked away.

Cool! "Atoms have been seen through electron microscopes." Oh? Really? How do you know that? Did you see it for yourself?

"We know they exist because we have seen them." Who is this "we"? Either you, personally, have done something, or you are accepting someone else's word that they have done it. If you have seen an atom through an electron microscope (and if you really understand how that device functions, well enough to "know" what you're looking at) then you can say "I know atoms exist because I have seen one." Most of us have not had that experience. 

I "believe" that atoms exist because I have read a bit of history of science, and have learned the story of how a multitude of people have gradually contributed to our (humanity's) store of knowledge on the subject. Occam's Razor makes it easier to believe in atoms than in a vast hoax to make us believe a falsehood. 

I have not observed the Earth orbiting the Sun. I have not observed the existence of binary stars -- for that matter I have not personally observed any evidence that "stars" are not pinprick holes in an immense back-lit black globe around the world. I have never seen a giant squid. I have not dived into the Marianas Trench. I certainly have never seen any craters on the far side of the Moon. Are there really planets beyond Saturn? I have seen Saturn, but nothing further out...

I "believe" that standard astronomical theories are "true" because the prophets of those ideas are essentially uncontested. But what about "climate change"? That idea is highly contested... so I must dig a little deeper. Not to know the science -- it is a domain that requires decades of work. But to learn enough to make a hopefully intelligent choice about my prophets on the subject.

"God" is kinda contested, too. There have been some pretty smart people who believed in Her existence. Personally... I can't make up my mind...  ;-)

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

Bob,

It's obvious that we are never going to agree on this and in fact seems to be getting further apart. You have stated your case ad I have stated mine and they are too far apart to reconcile. So in the interest of friendship I am calling an impasse. Agreed?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Sure. 

I don't proselytize, if only because I don't pretend to understand very much about God. I enjoy talking about Her, though. It's helpful to my own thinking. 

Some other time....    winking

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

If it works for you, then that's the most important thing. angel

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Randy   8 years ago

Randy, you have repeatedly stated your belief that God does not exist. You have asserted this. The burden of proof is on any one who makes an assertion.

Atheists like to claim the default position, so they say things like "the burden of proof is on those who believe in God".

That is simply not the case. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion , pro or con, and you do it every time this topic comes up.

 

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Atheists like to claim the default position, so they say things like "the burden of proof is on those who believe in God".

We have been on this merry-go-round several times before and reached an impasse. You have presented how you feel and I have presented how I do and we both have said why. My position has not changed and I strongly suspect neither has yours. We are never going to agree on this so why bother trying again?

 
 

Who is online


Kavika
Vic Eldred
Drinker of the Wry
Snuffy
Krishna


81 visitors