Atheists go to hell even if they are good!? (2)

[razeontherock]

IF God knows the future, then the future is set in stone.

This argument REALLY doesn't hold water! I understand why some think it does - but it doesn't.

That's like saying a guillotine was invented for criminals but hey, let's use it on bystanders too.

Negatore. Hell was created for satan and his followers. Man wasn't created to follow satan. Those that do, aren't just "bystanders."

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Don't take this as an attack. It's not. It's just a question about your behavior here.

As an atheist, I assume your axiom is that there is no God, right?

I am more cool with that than you may be willing to believe.

The part I can't figure out, though, is your interest in the "image of God" in the mind of a theist. I mean, that person's God doesn't exist, right? So, since the other person is evidently wrong in light of your axiom, why does it matter after that what characteristics that person chooses to attribute to their imagined God?

Just curious. I'm honestly interested in your genuine answer.

The kind of atheist that I am is not the "there is no god" atheist. I'm one of the "I don't believe in a god" atheists. Subtle rewording, but big difference.

I refuse to make the claim that the Christian God doesn't exist. I don't have any evidence for the Christian God, so I tend to reject the idea. But it is still possible, and I would accept the idea if there was sufficient evidence.

Until I find evidence for a theistic god, I will not believe in them. But that doesn't exclude the possibility. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This argument REALLY doesn't hold water! I understand why some think it does - but it doesn't.

Explain

Negatore. Hell was created for satan and his followers. Man wasn't created to follow satan. Those that do, aren't just "bystanders."

Not believing in the Christian God = following Satan? I would argue that not believing in the Christian God is the default position for everyone.

 

[Philothei]

To the bolded part: IF God has knowledge of what I actually end up doing, no, I have no free will. I may have the illusion of free will, but that was also predestined. You don't seem to be getting my point.

If God cannot be described by logic, then God is a useless concept. Does 1+1 not equal 2 for God? You enjoy espousing other human concepts to God - love, justice, compassion - but you refuse to attribute to him logic and reason. Is that simply because logic and reason threaten your image of God?

Two things here what you said in the first paragraph just does not jive... I explain it you just brushed it aside. I gave you the example of he parent with the kid... A kid has a candy "I know" he will drink water ...is that a prediction or I "impose" the drinking of water? Obviously I am not telling the kid to drink water Just because God knows us well of what we will do that means we do not have free will? no!! If you know the future of a person does this mean you caused it ? Nah.. of course not. There is no illusion...

God ascribes to his own logic you deny this thesis you prefer to say that He is illogical... I never said that So according to you Einstein is not logical if I (with lower IQ) do not understand him?


Love for God is not what human love is. I never said that either. Love is transcended for God and beyond any human emotion. But in order to "experience" that love we have to "trascend" that emotion; that is why a few posts back I talked about contemplation in God.

How do they threaten my God is I admit God to be like Einstein only "the perfect logic" that transcends all reality?

 

[Philothei]

So....God has the ability to save people from hell with the snap of his fingers, but he simply doesn't want to? Now your God seems a bit immoral.

Imagine this: two parents have a kid. They value this "free will" concept so much that they refuse to stop their kid from playing in the street. They may shout from far away saying "get out of the road", but that's it. Then the parents get in their car, and run the kid over.

That's what your God is doing. He's being completely complacent, maybe shoving in a cryptic warning somewhere which is unconvincing to most people on the planet, and then if you don't abide by the warning, he personally destroys you. Personally, I don't like that scenario.

The kid knows the dangers of playing in the street. The parent is NOT in the car. God does not send anyone to hell. God wants you to take responsibility of your actions and wants you to come back to Him. He is the one knocking the key is from the inside... the one who locks the door is US.

 

[razeontherock]

The kind of atheist that I am is not the "there is no god" atheist. I'm one of the "I don't believe in a god" atheists.

Until I find evidence for a theistic god, I will not believe in them.

Please do be aware that any such evidence, will not be of the scientific sort. It won't be controllable or repeatable. It won't be contained in a test tube.

 

[razeontherock]

So....God has the ability to save people from hell with the snap of his fingers, but he simply doesn't want to? Now your God seems a bit immoral.

Imagine this: two parents have a kid. They value this "free will" concept so much that they refuse to stop their kid from playing in the street. They may shout from far away saying "get out of the road", but that's it. Then the parents get in their car, and run the kid over.

That's what your God is doing. He's being completely complacent, maybe shoving in a cryptic warning somewhere which is unconvincing to most people on the planet, and then if you don't abide by the warning, he personally destroys you. Personally, I don't like that scenario.

This comparison is wrong, and ridiculously so. Otherwise, how did any of us escape being run over in the street?

 

[razeontherock]

Explain

I would refer you to posts 15 and 16. This is not complete, but a start.

Not believing in the Christian God = following Satan?

Nope. Following satan = following satan. And this is not what mankind was created for.

 

[cubinity]

The kind of atheist that I am is not the "there is no god" atheist. I'm one of the "I don't believe in a god" atheists. Subtle rewording, but big difference.

I refuse to make the claim that the Christian God doesn't exist. I don't have any evidence for the Christian God, so I tend to reject the idea. But it is still possible, and I would accept the idea if there was sufficient evidence.

Until I find evidence for a theistic god, I will not believe in them. But that doesn't exclude the possibility. Hope that answers your question.

It does answer my question. Thank you, and I do appreciate the difference.

However, answering that question created new ones. I hope you don't mind my asking, as I believe the answers will help me better understand your position on this thread's topic.

So, if I may, my next question:

Let us assume you believe in the possibility of the Christian God, but you definitely reject the accuracy of one particular Christian's claim about some characteristics of God, as that Christian imagines Him.

Why is that particular Christian's image important to you? In other words, what consequence is there in someone else maintaining that God has any particular characteristic that is not logically a characteristic of God?

If that person's image of God is of no consequence to you, then why not just ignore those characteristics you reject, and move on with your search for evidence?

 

[Frumious]

Does God know what is going to happen to me tomorrow? Simple question.

Maybe you could help me answer this "simple question": How exactly does space and time appear from a perspective external to space and time?

 

[razeontherock]

IF God has knowledge of what I actually end up doing, no, I have no free will.

This still doesn't follow. You may have heard a Prof or someone else make a convincing sounding argument like this, but it is not too hard to tear those apart.

If God cannot be described by logic, then God is a useless concept.

God is not a concept.

You enjoy espousing other human concepts to God - love, justice, compassion - but you refuse to attribute to him logic and reason.

None of this is true. We don't "espouse" anything to Him. His logic and reason are far beyond our own, which is included in your word "justice."

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Just because God knows us well of what we will do that means we do not have free will? no!! If you know the future of a person does this mean you caused it ? Nah.. of course not. There is no illusion...

I'm not saying that God "causes" any of our actions - I'm just saying that we only can do what God sees us doing. It's sort of a time-travel paradox - if you knew the future, could you change it? If you could change it, then was it really the future? God, in this picture, is someone that knows the future. If God knows the future, that implies that there is only one linear string of events. I'm not saying God chooses our actions or us, but we don't have any say in our actions because there is only one outcome.

It's like Schrodinger's cat in quantum theory - the cat is in the box and you don't know if it's alive or not. There is uncertainty there, but once you make the measurement and check and see, you know the answer. So God is essentially checking every box, ensuring that there is no ambiguity in the future.

God ascribes to his own logic you deny this thesis you prefer to say that He is illogical... I never said that So according to you Einstein is not logical if I (with lower IQ) do not understand him?

If you had the training in physics, you would understand Einstein's work. I personally don't understand Einstein's work very well, but that doesn't mean that I can't.

Love for God is not what human love is. I never said that either. Love is transcended for God and beyond any human emotion. But in order to "experience" that love we have to "trascend" that emotion; that is why a few posts back I talked about contemplation in God.

Your definitions of God are getting more and more abstract. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing

Please do be aware that any such evidence, will not be of the scientific sort. It won't be controllable or repeatable. It won't be contained in a test tube.

Why? Everything else in life is subject to scientific verification. Why is religion exempt? Especially if God really wants to have a relationship with me, he should know that I am a scientifically-oriented person. Paul got a revelation, Thomas got to touch the wounds - why do I have to take it on faith?

This comparison is wrong, and ridiculously so. Otherwise, how did any of us escape being run over in the street?

I'll amend it - there are two kids playing in the street. The parents yell "get out of the street". One does, the other doesn't. The one that stays in the street gets run over. The parents could have forcefully gone out in the street and brought them both back and saved them both. Wouldn't that be more appropriate?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It does answer my question. Thank you, and I do appreciate the difference.

However, answering that question created new ones. I hope you don't mind my asking, as I believe the answers will help me better understand your position on this thread's topic.

No problem

So, if I may, my next question:

Let us assume you believe in the possibility of the Christian God, but you definitely reject the accuracy of one particular Christian's claim about some characteristics of God, as that Christian imagines Him.

Why is that particular Christian's image important to you? In other words, what consequence is there in someone else maintaining that God has any particular characteristic that is not logically a characteristic of God?

If that person's image of God is of no consequence to you, then why not just ignore those characteristics you reject, and move on with your search for evidence?

There are multiple reasons for that. You could even extend it broadly and ask why I even post here in the first place. In essence, I find these discussions stimulating and I think they keep me sharp in thinking about these subjects. Also, I don't like talking about these things with my theist friends, because I don't want to offend them. I feel I can be more honest with people online, though I try to avoid flaming.

I actually don't know why I'm in this thread because I usually post in Creation/Evolution topics. But I find it extremely interesting how a lot of Christians either don't think things through logically that are in the Bible, or try to make the Bible exempt from reason. It bugs me, so I comment on it.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not saying that God "causes" any of our actions - I'm just saying that we only can do what God sees us doing. It's sort of a time-travel paradox - if you knew the future, could you change it? If you could change it, then was it really the future? God, in this picture, is someone that knows the future. If God knows the future, that implies that there is only one linear string of events.

WRONG! Apply yourself to the 10 dimensions of string theory, and if you can fathom that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Paul got a revelation, Thomas got to touch the wounds - why do I have to take it on faith?

You are wrong for distinguishing these experiences from Faith.

I'll amend it - there are two kids playing in the street. The parents yell "get out of the street". One does, the other doesn't. The one that stays in the street gets run over. The parents could have forcefully gone out in the street and brought them both back and saved them both. Wouldn't that be more appropriate?

This is the type of "questioning" that is wrong, a la the potter vs clay thread. It's ok to legitimately ask, but when you're really trying to advise - you cut yourself off.

The best dog I ever had, in addition to the same training they all got, saw another get run over. Right next to her. It was really a fluke that the one that lived decided to listen to me at that moment, because she wasn't at all consistent about it at that time. She put 2 + 2 together though. She also got away one other time afterwards and got hit herself; a low hanging license plate compressed her rib cage against the street and she popped up into the air unharmed. Freaked her out though! Guess how many times she didn't obey my command after that? I could walk her through rush hour traffic without a leash, and leave her sitting outside a store while I went in.

Now consider Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau ...

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This still doesn't follow. You may have heard a Prof or someone else make a convincing sounding argument like this, but it is not too hard to tear those apart.

Well, tear it apart. My position is simply this: if someone (be it God, whoever) knows what will happen in the future 100% (relative to our current position in time), then nothing else can happen in the future other than what the someone saw.

Is this wrong? Point out where I'm wrong

God is not a concept.

So we can't have knowledge of God? That's all I was saying.

None of this is true. We don't "espouse" anything to Him. His logic and reason are far beyond our own, which is included in your word "justice."

You see, that just sounds too convenient. What is the point of human reason, love, or justice if God's version is so much better? But we can't even understand it? If God has wisdom, why doesn't he share it with us. Why are we stuck with our primitive understandings of things?

 

[cubinity]

No problem



There are multiple reasons for that. You could even extend it broadly and ask why I even post here in the first place. In essence, I find these discussions stimulating and I think they keep me sharp in thinking about these subjects. Also, I don't like talking about these things with my theist friends, because I don't want to offend them. I feel I can be more honest with people online, though I try to avoid flaming.

I actually don't know why I'm in this thread because I usually post in Creation/Evolution topics. But I find it extremely interesting how a lot of Christians either don't think things through logically that are in the Bible, or try to make the Bible exempt from reason. It bugs me, so I comment on it.

Great! Thank you for your honesty. I really empathize with your answer, because I feel very similarly with my theist friends (even though I identify myself as a theist). I come here because discussing this stuff with them gets trying.

Anyway, I'm glad you are here, discussing this stuff and keeping your mind sharp.

So, now that I feel as though I better understand your broader position, I'd like to ask you a question about some of the stuff this thread is discussing (please forgive me if I ask a question you've already answered in another post to someone else. I haven't gotten a chance to read the entire thread yet):

I assume you and I have consciousness, loosely defined for now by our capacity to perceive, and that God shares this quality with us. I also assume any discussion of the afterlife is a concept of extending this consciousness beyond the survival of our physical brain function into some realm that can be differentiated from this one. If there is any resurrection at all, it will be a resurrection of our consciousness into that realm, or a new realm that is something like this one.

Time is an important element of our perceived experience. Would you agree? Would you also agree that whenever we discuss perception, we must accept relativity of perceptions?

If so, then my question is this:

Is God perceiving the passage of time similar to the way we do, with events historically following one another as the ongoing progression of cause and effect takes place (thus requiring him to respond to events in a historical order)? Or, does God have a vision of all events, throughout all of history, all at once, and therefore exercises some capacity to interact with various parts of history without regard to the order we perceive?

Considering your inquisitive position, I don't expect you to assume to "know" an answer, but I get the impression you have a concept you favor. I'd be interested to hear more about whatever concept you favor.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Is God perceiving the passage of time similar to the way we do, with events historically following one another as the ongoing progression of cause and effect takes place (thus requiring him to respond to events in a historical order)? Or, does God have a vision of all events, throughout all of history, all at once, and therefore exercises some capacity to interact with various parts of history without regard to the order we perceive?

See, that's the big question! With my mind, it's extremely difficult to imagine anything outside of the dimensions we inhabit. But let's just add another half dimension to God. If God lived in 4 dimensions (whereas we only live in 3.5 - the 3 spatial, and the forward direction in time), it would be like Slaughterhouse Five by Vonnegut, with that alien race that lived in 4 dimensions. Their perspective was that life as they knew it was pretty unalterable, and that time was essentially like space. They could move forward and backward in their plot on time and space. To them, free will wasn't even a concept. Free will is a concept for us because we are stuck moving one direction in time. So maybe the whole concept of free will is a bit over-emphasized.

When we think of neurology, thinks sort of back that idea up. Consciousness is pretty much just physical connections in the brain. We are aware of our surroundings, but we are unaware of how little control we have over our bodies. Our brain is one big algorithmic fact-checking circuit making countless calculations and responding according to probabilities, experience, and the like. I think that we underestimate the decisions our brains make for us.

But if you end up throwing God into some "outside of time" thing, it very quickly becomes a cop-out for you to explain away any obstacle in your way. If an idea explains everything, it explains nothing. If you go out of your way to that say God is "outside of time", well, you can say whatever you want...you can say he intervenes when he feels like it, because you're already destroying the mental concepts in our minds of time anyway.

I'm starting to ramble and I need sleep, haha

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by Lion Hearted Man

Paul got a revelation, Thomas got to touch the wounds - why do I have to take it on faith?
​

You are wrong for distinguishing these experiences from Faith.

Both of them had to do with faith... Even if Thomas had the 'sign" or Paul a revelation... Remember Christ saying to Thomas" you put your hands on my wounds and thus you believed ;blessed are the ones who would believe yet never have seen them" (paraphrasing here) ? Both accounts are indeed baised on faith for many of the Jews saw the signs and they did not believe. Also many see visions that they do not believe... In one of the Elder's words the ones who see the vision are the ones who needed most. God always tries to reveal His message through other people thus we are given the command to 'proclaim to all nations"! Belief does not take "proof" or then ALL people would have believed Jesus at his times...and they did not.

 

[cubinity]

See, that's the big question! With my mind, it's extremely difficult to imagine anything outside of the dimensions we inhabit. But let's just add another half dimension to God. If God lived in 4 dimensions (whereas we only live in 3.5 - the 3 spatial, and the forward direction in time), it would be like Slaughterhouse Five by Vonnegut, with that alien race that lived in 4 dimensions. Their perspective was that life as they knew it was pretty unalterable, and that time was essentially like space. They could move forward and backward in their plot on time and space. To them, free will wasn't even a concept. Free will is a concept for us because we are stuck moving one direction in time. So maybe the whole concept of free will is a bit over-emphasized.

When we think of neurology, thinks sort of back that idea up. Consciousness is pretty much just physical connections in the brain. We are aware of our surroundings, but we are unaware of how little control we have over our bodies. Our brain is one big algorithmic fact-checking circuit making countless calculations and responding according to probabilities, experience, and the like. I think that we underestimate the decisions our brains make for us.

But if you end up throwing God into some "outside of time" thing, it very quickly becomes a cop-out for you to explain away any obstacle in your way. If an idea explains everything, it explains nothing. If you go out of your way to that say God is "outside of time", well, you can say whatever you want...you can say he intervenes when he feels like it, because you're already destroying the mental concepts in our minds of time anyway.

I'm starting to ramble and I need sleep, haha

Goodnight, and I look forward to discussing this an similar stuff with you in the future. Please feel invited to friend me if you are interested so we can stay in touch.

 

[Skavau]

Two things here what you said in the first paragraph just does not jive... I explain it you just brushed it aside. I gave you the example of he parent with the kid... A kid has a candy "I know" he will drink water ...is that a prediction or I "impose" the drinking of water? Obviously I am not telling the kid to drink water Just because God knows us well of what we will do that means we do not have free will? no!! If you know the future of a person does this mean you caused it ? Nah.. of course not. There is no illusion...

You 'knowing' what a kid will do is not the same as an omniscient God knowing what someone will do. They are omniscient. They literally cannot be wrong. What you predict the kid does remains, however likely it may be - just a prediction. God however is described as our infallible creator that under no circumstance can ever be incorrect.