Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Skavau]

@Skavau - Where (or How) do you draw the line in the sand between good and evil?
Is there a way to determine an empirically universal line that defines good vs evil?

Morality is a human construct (by humans, for humans). There are no universal lines and by definition there can be none. It generally refers to how we ought to behave within the context and consideration of a community. Evil is often referred to actions that are detrimental to society and good actions that benefit it.

As for my understanding, I despise all forms of collectivism and consider that any legislation that negates and stultifies the liberty of the individual. We all share that desire to be free of shackles and live by our own interests and standards. Evil is the willful infringement of that and further I would denote that 'pure evil' would be sadism. The deliberate objective of inflicting harm on others in itself.

 

[Frumious]

Morality is a human construct (by humans, for humans). There are no universal lines and by definition there can be none. It generally refers to how we ought to behave within the context and consideration of a community. Evil is often referred to actions that are detrimental to society and good actions that benefit it.

As for my understanding, I despise all forms of collectivism and consider that any legislation that negates and stultifies the liberty of the individual. We all share that desire to be free of shackles and live by our own interests and standards. Evil is the willful infringement of that and further I would denote that 'pure evil' would be sadism. The deliberate objective of inflicting harm on others in itself.

I'm not trying to trap or bait you... but I am trying to see how you as an individual define these things. I agree that it's near impossible to draw a line in the sand empirically on these things.

You mention sadism as pure evil; there has to be some varying degree in this. There's an element of sadism that can be found in what many refer to as Justice... after seeing someone do something horrible, it is not uncommon for others to gain satisfaction in seeing the afflicter become the afflicted. Additionally I see where you've outlined your distaste for thought crimes, but what about malice which is a part of sadism? Where a person gains pleasure from watching others suffering, are Jackass movies pure evil?

What are your thoughts on people taking liberties on themselves that intentionally affect or afflict those around them? Some of the motivations around self destructive activity is to hurt those who've hurt them. This type of behavior could never be proved outside of a confession (kind of falls into the thought crimes area again).

You've also mentioned community. In a community of many belief systems and world views, wouldn't it be sadistic to intentionally hurt others through the life which they are trying to live? An example would be along the lines of hiding a piece of pork on the front doornob of a Muslim's house, or giving someone a link to something graphically inappropriate under the guise of something non-controversial.

My point is that any attempt to define a line in the sand only raises more and more questions about where exactly that line is.

 

[quatona]

My point is that any attempt to define a line in the sand only raises more and more questions about where exactly that line is.

And what praytell would be your proposed solution to this fact?

 

[Skavau]

You mention sadism as pure evil; there has to be some varying degree in this. There's an element of sadism that can be found in what many refer to as Justice...

No efficient system of law should have any element of sadism.

after seeing someone do something horrible, it is not uncommon for others to gain satisfaction in seeing the afflicter become the afflicted.

Yes. That's an obvious emotional reaction but it has nothing to do with justice. You put the families of the victims of a rapist or a murderer as the judge and jury and there would be no fair trial with the accused likely undergoing torture or execution almost every time. Whether or not it is 'right' to sometimes feel these emotions (it is certainly natural) - it is not just and we do not rule by it.

Additionally I see where you've outlined your distaste for thought crimes, but what about malice which is a part of sadism? Where a person gains pleasure from watching others suffering, are Jackass movies pure evil?

That is fiction and those are outlets (though you would do better than to reference Jackass, where those involved do it voluntarily). I am sure there is a tendency for some elements of sadism in all or many of us. They can appear at times and it often is expressed in the media we might partake in - but that again is an outlet that harms no-one. Finding it amusing to watch AI controlled bots in a video game undergo a horrific death is not comparable to encouraging it to happen in real life.

What are your thoughts on people taking liberties on themselves that intentionally affect or afflict those around them?

This is so obvious that it almost answers itself. It is not an action of liberty. By intentionally afflicting other people you are undermining their life in favour of yours.

Some of the motivations around self destructive activity is to hurt those who've hurt them. This type of behavior could never be proved outside of a confession (kind of falls into the thought crimes area again).

Oh, you're referring to self-destructive behaviour. Could you provide an example? This usually involves people with varying mental health issues that don't see how their behaviour is effecting others.

You've also mentioned community. In a community of many belief systems and world views, wouldn't it be sadistic to intentionally hurt others through the life which they are trying to live? An example would be along the lines of hiding a piece of pork on the front doornob of a Muslim's house, or giving someone a link to something graphically inappropriate under the guise of something non-controversial.

Yes it would. It would be the height of obnoxiousness.

My point is that any attempt to define a line in the sand only raises more and more questions about where exactly that line is.

I should hope in any case though, wherever that line is, that torturing people for what they think or do not think is far beyond it.

 

[Rajni]

do I need to point out there aren't millions of shrines all over the world dedicated to unicorns?

Oh the pressure.... building those things takes time... please, everyone, be patient....


.

 

[Rajni]

I don't believe that a 'lake of fire' exists. I am no more 'choosing' to go to the lake of fire as understood in Christianity than I am choosing to enter hellfire as decreed under Islam.

It is rather difficult to choose to go to a place one truly doesn't believe
exists. I wonder why it seems that Christians don't understand this...

 

[Rajni]

People confidently reject Jesus everyday and go to hell.

Yikes! This statement doesn't do much to encourage confidence in His power to save....

.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't see condemnation / punishment as necessarily meaning endless torment in hell.

Nor do I. That's why I'm an annihilationist.

I believe the punishment would not be endless because that for which
it's being administered is not endless. God's aim was to take away the
sin of the world, to have victory over evil. Therefore, whatever stands
in need of being punished won't last forever, if indeed God is
victorious.

That may sound logical, but it is not scriptural. The only reason the penalty doesn't last forever is because the penalty has already been paid. If we reject the purpose for which God paid such a high price then the penalty will surely last forever.

"From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." - Gen 2:17.

The fleshly nature of Christ died forever as the penalty that saves us from dying forever. If we ignore or reject the purpose for which Christ died then we will surely die forever.

 

[Rajni]

What did Jesus go to the Cross for?

Would there be a reason to repent if there were no impending punishment for not repenting?

I would think that genuine repentance wouldn't need the threat of
punishment as it's motivation.

Is fear of punishment the only reason to enter into a relationship with
the Lord? It seems I have seen other, more noble reasons for doing so
presented in the bible...

There is a judgment and a penalty for sin.

That judgment and penalty is supposedly what Jesus took upon
Himself in mankind's place.... unless the crucifixion didn't actually
happen. To hear some Christians tell it, Jesus' sacrifice -- if it happened
at all -- didn't really change anything.


.

 

[Rajni]

Yes, I am aware of what the Bible says. And I assert that it includes contradictions.

Yep... I recently learned that one the hard way...

Thank goodness, however, that a book doesn't have to be infallible to be inspirational!

.

 

[Rajni]

Originally Posted by Freodin

1. The dominion of man, where man by his own free will
decides that he wants to be saved, and God will honour this​

This completely misrepresents the Covenant.

​

Perhaps, but it would seem that is how the gospel is presented by most
of Christianity.

 

[Rajni]

Have you EVER come across an athiest that lived, acted, and behaved like a person that follows Christ in his heart, mind and deeds?

As a mere human being, that would be hard for me to determine, since I
cannot read a person's heart and mind. The deeds portion, though, yes, I
have. And I have come across Christians who may as well have been
atheists. ("Christian Partialism: Atheism in Disguise?")

 

[Doveaman]

Of course, there might not be much in the way of unity as far as what is considered "essential".

That's because many are called but only few are chosen.

I forgot to mention that whether you are a universalist or an annihilationist or an eternal tormentist, these all fall under the non-essentials. So hopefully we'll all meet together on that great day and have supper.

 

[Rajni]

So hopefully we'll all meet together on that great day and have supper.

I'm sure we all will!

.

 

[Frumious]

Skavau - I'm trying to show how it is practically impossible to empirically draw a line in the sand where there's people on one side are "good" and the people on the other side are not good.

Even in your outline (majority of which I completely agree with), you believe that some actions which can never be empirically proven are evil. The example I gave was someone who intentionally hurts people who might care about them, by hurting themselves, but it can extend to other types of non-physical abuse. I believe that we both agree that it's wrong even if it couldn't be proven in a court of law outside of a confession.

I'll come to a more solid point here by addressing your initial response:

Morality is a human construct (by humans, for humans). There are no universal lines and by definition there can be none. It generally refers to how we ought to behave within the context and consideration of a community. Evil is often referred to actions that are detrimental to society and good actions that benefit it.

I would propose that there is a universal line and that by definition there can only be one. Further, this line is clearly found by following the part you wrote which I highlighted in purple.

I think everyone agrees about what we as people really shouldn't do, there's a broad range from something as simple as farting in an elevator, to the worst cases including the torturing and murdering of a person.

I don't have a problem with trying to rank these infractions against goodness (in Christiandom it would be called transgressions from righteousness). We could potentially give farting in an elevator as a 1 point infraction and the murder of a person as a 1000 point infraction if we so choose. Perhaps putting ham on a Muslim's doorknob would be a 20, and sending a link for two girls one cup to your mother in law might be a 15.

Over the course of a life time; everyone would have some infractions. Whether they be for selfishly taking the last donut at the work place function, telling a cop they didn't know how fast they were going, or the full on intentional hurting of another human for nothing but personal pleasure... Everyone has some infractions.

The Christian view is that the Law of the Bible is set to show people this very concept, "that all have fallen short" of perfection. Every single one of us has infractions, most will admit that we all have infractions daily.

The only universal place to draw a line in the sand is at zero infractions. The only way to empirically claim goodness, in a way that is universally accepted is to never ever make a mistake or trespass against a person.

Human instinct is to draw a line in the sand in a place that puts the individual drawing the line on the good side. The reality is there's only one universal point in the entire system, and that's the point of perfection.

This entire notion is the premise or preface to Christianity. Our belief is centered around the belief that Jesus is the only person with zero infractions who's ever lived.

Here's a the concept outlined via MS paint. Imagine if you will that as you go down the diagram you have people with more "infractions". Laws of man are places where humans have drawn a line in the sand.

Overall, I really just want to show you how this notion isn't illogical.

Further, in terms of what the bible says in Revelation concerning the Lake of Fire, the word used is "torment" not torture. These words have very different meanings. Torment is an internal experience and torture is an externally inflicted experience. In contrast most of the mentions in the Bible of people being tortured, are referencing believers who are the victims of the torture.

 

[Frumious]

(((Sorry for the wall of text)))

 

[Philothei]

But if I don't believe in a God how would I know that I even had a responsibility to 'know' God?

These are absurd standards.


Yes.

What is wrong with that? If I die tomorrow, I would say exactly that. That I was not given enough information to believe that he existed. It would be true and I would be being honest.


My position is based in rationalism and empiricism. I will also add that I have never been religious and my activity in this thread is based on moral opposition to the idea that atheists (or anyone, really) is somehow deserving of being tortured for eternity. I don't approve of thought-crime now, and I don't approve of it in a hypothetical afterlife not even mentioning torture.

Then if you do not believe it why would it make any difference to you whether some others do or not?

 

[Doveaman]

Atheists don't think you can be "saved" by Darwin.

But they may think they are “saved” by Darwin. Without Darwin’s theory of evolution the support for atheism is seriously diminished.

The atheists on those forums don't hate Christians or Christianity.

They just think we are sick and delusional, right?

They just don't believe that Christianity is true. You tell them that Christianity is real, they'll say "prove it". Prove it means using scientific evidence.

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Science. Science is to be used, not to be served.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm sure we all will!

You would, wouldn't you?

Don't forget the essentials.



(Boy, this thread is really accelerating. I can't seem to keep up.)

 

[Skavau]

Skavau - I'm trying to show how it is practically impossible to empirically draw a line in the sand where there's people on one side are "good" and the people on the other side are not good.

It is hard, and most people do not fall past that line but it can be done. Someone who tells me that they would murder for God if required fall way past that line. Someone who tells me they derive every moral assertion solely on the basis of God's decree has fallen past that line.

There's two ways past that line as well: The first path could be the embrace of obscene legalism and obedience. This could be expressed in the indefatigable adulation, praise and obedience towards a specific authority with all human life being considered expendable to that end (this includes most puppets and apologists for fascism, totalitarianism and of course, eternal torture for God). The second path is that of anarchy. That there are no values and no reason to moderate behavioural constraints (often you will find delinquents that constantly break the law that hold to this). The first is much more subtle and hard to locate than the second.

Even in your outline (majority of which I completely agree with), you believe that some actions which can never be empirically proven are evil.

What actions was I referring to?

The example I gave was someone who intentionally hurts people who might care about them, by hurting themselves, but it can extend to other types of non-physical abuse.

Oh I see. I didn't read it as that. Someone who does that just to hurt others is both masochistic and sadistic.

I believe that we both agree that it's wrong even if it couldn't be proven in a court of law outside of a confession.

Sure.

I would propose that there is a universal line and that by definition there can only be one. Further, this line is clearly found by following the part you wrote which I highlighted in purple.

Reading on here.

The Christian view is that the Law of the Bible is set to show people this very concept, "that all have fallen short" of perfection. Every single one of us has infractions, most will admit that we all have infractions daily.

I know this is mainstream Christian belief. The fact that we can even 'achieve' infractions is due to our own imperfection as mandated by God. Created sick and commanded to be well. God is ultimately responsible here either by letting us be 'infected' by original sin or by deliberately establishing us as imperfect moral agents.

The only universal place to draw a line in the sand is at zero infractions. The only way to empirically claim goodness, in a way that is universally accepted is to never ever make a mistake or trespass against a person.

That's an obscene standard. We both agree on our imperfection (whether created or not) but to insist that one can only be considered 'good' at no infractions is frankly, unrealistic.

Further, in terms of what the bible says in Revelation concerning the Lake of Fire, the word used is "torment" not torture. These words have very different meanings. Torment is an internal experience and torture is an externally inflicted experience. In contrast most of the mentions in the Bible of people being tortured, are referencing believers who are the victims of the torture.

Whether it is eternal torment or eternal torture does not concern me remotely. Either is abhorrent.

But before I go on, I don't quite know what you believe here: Do you believe that all Non-Christians will languish in eternal torment?