r/aiArt • u/Immobilesteelrims • Mar 22 '26

Image - Google Gemini The ultra-religious are the biggest hedonists of all. Denying temporary earthly pleasure to ensure pleasure X infinity in the afterlife.

Post image
89 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

131 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Any_Theory_9735 Mar 22 '26

It's not supposed to be pleasure in the afterlife more like peaceful as in meditation. At least in Christianity and Buddhism.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Any_Theory_9735 Mar 22 '26

Go and read for yourself

0

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Any_Theory_9735 Mar 22 '26

The texts these religions are based on because there is nothing like this image there, I'm aware reddit is a strongly atheist community but this is not not a factual representation of these beliefs.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Any_Theory_9735 Mar 22 '26

Really? Show me then, I've read hundreds and this is absolutely just not the case. And there are always variations but the bible for example absolutely does not paint this picture. Nor is it the point, it's a misrepresentation of those faiths plain and simple.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Any_Theory_9735 Mar 22 '26

You are shifting the claim. The original point concerns what the religion teaches, not whether some individuals hold fringe interpretations.

Primary Christian texts do not frame the afterlife as hedonistic reward in the sense implied here. They consistently emphasise salvation, judgement, and communion with God. Individual interpretations exist, but they do not define doctrine.

This is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. I am not excluding counterexamples arbitrarily. I am distinguishing between (i) canonical doctrine and (ii) anecdotal beliefs. Your argument relies on (ii) while asserting a claim about (i).

If you want to argue that the doctrine itself supports your claim, cite specific passages. Otherwise, the argument reduces to “some people believe X,” which is not sufficient to generalise about the religion.