Is the minster in your church an atheist?

[non-religious]

[MorkandMindy]Not to mention painful - anyone who knows the gospel and rejects it is a dead cert. for eternal torment.

According to your interpretation of your beliefs an eternal torment awaits those like me. Okay. However, speaking purely for myself, having had both feet firmly planted within the faith, I am very much, very, very, very much persuaded that such a place does not exist. So I sleep very, very, very soundly at night. That's the beauty of being a former believer; I can speak from experience having been where you currently still are, and I have to say I wouldn't go back, not for all the empty threats in the world. So I appreciate entirely where you're coming from, and it's the predictable schtick that many like you tend to use, but using the threat of hell only really works on those who are vulnerable or gullible. I am neither, and from the countless testimonies of those ex-pastors/Christians that I have heard, they too have realised that such a place doesn't exist and that empty threats really do nothing, but highlight just another set of dubious beliefs from one of many different belief systems. More power to you for believing it.

 

[Danny777]

According to your interpretation of your beliefs an eternal torment awaits those like me. Okay. However, speaking purely for myself, having had both feet firmly planted within the faith, I am very much, very, very, very much persuaded that such a place does not exist. So I sleep very, very, very soundly at night. That's the beauty of being a former believer; I can speak from experience having been where you currently still are, and I have to say I wouldn't go back, not for all the empty threats in the world. So I appreciate entirely where you're coming from, and it's the predictable schtick that many like you tend to use, but using the threat of hell only really works on those who are vulnerable or gullible. I am neither, and from the countless testimonies of those ex-pastors/Christians that I have heard, they too have realised that such a place doesn't exist and that empty threats really do nothing, but highlight just another set of dubious beliefs from one of many different belief systems. More power to you for believing it.

How can you and the countless others KNOW that such a place does not exist? You may have changed your mind, but you cannot know...

 

[MikeBigg]

How can you and the countless others KNOW that such a place does not exist? You may have changed your mind, but you cannot know...

Of course this question can be asked the other way - how can you know such places do exist?

The whole turn-or-burn, eternal-hell-fire approach to leading people back to God borders on control. Its no wonder that thinking atheists find it so repugnant.

Here is one of my favourite Bible passages slightly modified to include the concept of eternal concious torment:

Matt 11:

28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light, but if you don't I will torment you for a billion times a billion years - just for starters - and man are you going to know about it!"

Now I know Jesus didn't say that, but that is effectively the message with ETC - and I think it misrepresents the true nature of God, whose very essence is love.

ECT is comparable to a shotgun wedding - hardly a good motive for a long term relationship.

If only all thinking Christians would find it as repugnant as atheists.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Oafman]

How can you and the countless others KNOW that such a place does not exist? You may have changed your mind, but you cannot know...

Do you KNOW that Hades or Valhalla don't exist? The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of these places, so it is rational to believe that none of them exist.

 

[Robban]

Do you KNOW that Hades or Valhalla don't exist? The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of these places, so it is rational to believe that none of them exist.

Famous last words?


Just before the first shovel of dirt hits the coffin lid.

Not being sinister, but just a thought,
we have no evidence for which second, minute, hour, day, month or year, we will breath our last breath either, but we seem to know it will happen.

Do some live their lives in a courthouse, where there has to be hard evidence before every move?

Do you have evidence your house will not catch fire?

Can anyone say,"Beyond a shadow of doubt" about anything?

 

[Danny777]

Do you KNOW that Hades or Valhalla don't exist? The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of these places, so it is rational to believe that none of them exist.

I never said I KNOW hell does exist...non-religious says he KNOWS it does not!

I believe hell does exist and I believe this on what I feel is good authority. However, I do not KNOW it exists - in the same way no-one can say they know that it does not exist.

I thought an atheist was someone who took a position of "unbelief" on issues like God, heaven and hell etc, rather than dogmatically stating they know these things to be false.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Paul Little wrote two books which cover exactly the only two foci Christianity or indeed anything we come to know about should ever have.


And they are: 'Know What You Believe' and 'Know Why You Believe'.


That is true of any topic whatsoever. If it is a science topic then for example find out what size a gold nucleus is and why we believe it is that size.



We can then go through the evidence to consider whether there are any alternative explanations. If we don't have a why then we don't have any grounds for a what. If we don't have a what then we don't need a why. Those are the only two shows in town.

 

[ianb321red]

According to your interpretation of your beliefs an eternal torment awaits those like me. Okay. However, speaking purely for myself, having had both feet firmly planted within the faith, I am very much, very, very, very much persuaded that such a place does not exist. So I sleep very, very, very soundly at night. That's the beauty of being a former believer; I can speak from experience having been where you currently still are, and I have to say I wouldn't go back, not for all the empty threats in the world. So I appreciate entirely where you're coming from, and it's the predictable schtick that many like you tend to use, but using the threat of hell only really works on those who are vulnerable or gullible. I am neither, and from the countless testimonies of those ex-pastors/Christians that I have heard, they too have realised that such a place doesn't exist and that empty threats really do nothing, but highlight just another set of dubious beliefs from one of many different belief systems. More power to you for believing it.

Well, I would say you have more faith now than you did when you were a Christian - and I mean that literally.

What you say above is actually pretty offensive - firstly, you conclude that people who believe in the reality of hell are either/ or vulnerable and gullible. I am neither of these, yet I believe that hell is a real physical place, currently being prepared as a future eternal age for those that reject Christ.

You also seem to totally misunderstand the doctrine of hell since you see it only as a threat from God, rather than correct view which is to see it as justice and a triumph over all of the horrendous sins we are subjected to..

You say people have "realised that such a place doesn't exist". Based on what exactly?
The same argument applies here as it does for the existence of God - claims of knowledge whether they are affirming or denying something BOTH need justification - the burden of proof cannot be shifted in either direction. If you are holding the negative position on this you must be privy to some kind of knowledge which has led you to take up this position, rather than affirming it..

 

[ianb321red]

The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of these places, so it is rational to believe that none of them exist.

Not true.
Rational analysis does not use arguments like yours that appeal to ignorance. Your argument assumes that since something (hell in this case) is at or beyond the limit of your understanding that it is false now, and therefore will always be false in the future.

Reality doesn't work like that. Our understanding of something doesn't inform reality. Reality exists at all times independently of what we understand, and then it is down to human understanding/ logic to "catch up"....

 

[s_s]

Well, I would say you have more faith now than you did when you were a Christian - and I mean that literally.

What you say above is actually pretty offensive - firstly, you conclude that people who believe in the reality of hell are either/ or vulnerable and gullible. I am neither of these, yet I believe that hell is a real physical place, currently being prepared as a future eternal age for those that reject Christ.

You also seem to totally misunderstand the doctrine of hell since you see it only as a threat from God, rather than correct view which is to see it as justice and a triumph over all of the horrendous sins we are subjected to..

You say people have "realised that such a place doesn't exist". Based on what exactly?
The same argument applies here as it does for the existence of God - claims of knowledge whether they are affirming or denying something BOTH need justification - the burden of proof cannot be shifted in either direction. If you are holding the negative position on this you must be privy to some kind of knowledge which has led you to take up this position, rather than affirming it..

Very well put.

Those who choose to join the religion known as "atheism" need a hell (lol) more faith than Christians do...

 

[theFijian]

Very well put.

Those who choose to join the religion known as "atheism" need a hell (lol) more faith than Christians do...

What do people actually mean when they say "you need more faith to believe x, y or z"?

 

[ianb321red]

What do people actually mean when they say "you need more faith to believe x, y or z"?

Well I find it easier to believe in God than to not. I mean there is more evidence to suggest the Christian God exists and is true than there is evidence to support belief in any other god(s) or in a godless universe...

 

[Genersis]

Well I find it easier to believe in God than to not. I mean there is more evidence to suggest the Christian God exists and is true than there is evidence to support belief in any other god(s) or in a godless universe...

Everyone could say something to that effect about the beliefs they hold compared to others which they don't.

 

[ianb321red]

Everyone could say something to that effect about the beliefs they hold compared to others which they don't.

True - I can only speak for myself and the way that I view things though.....

 

[theFijian]

Well I find it easier to believe in God than to not. I mean there is more evidence to suggest the Christian God exists and is true than there is evidence to support belief in any other god(s) or in a godless universe...

So 'faith' in this context means... it's easier (meaning what exactly?) to believe something because you believe the evidence supports that belief?

So as has been said anyone could say that about any belief they hold whether it be Hinduism, climate change denial, moon landing conspiracies, atheism.,Therefore it makes the "you need/have more faith to believe x,y, or z" objectively meaningless, so it surprises me that Christians are so keen to use it, then again it doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[non-religious]

[Danny777How can you and the countless others KNOW that such a place does not exist? You may have changed your mind, but you cannot know...

I clearly stated that I am not persuaded that such a place exists. Can I prove it does not exist? Absolutely not; can you prove it does exist? Absolutely not. The preponderance of evidence does tilt somewhat towards my belief. Without wishing to use hackneyed cliches about "you believe it, so you have to prove it" there is some truth in that statement. You believe it because it is written in a book you base your entire faith upon. In so doing, you have to circumnavigate a whole myriad of moral obstacles in order for you believe in such a place. You and I both know that you wouldn't send someone to such a place; let alone create such a place. I therefore suggest that you're displaying a greater level of compassion than the very god you believe.

Hell is but one part of the wider issue. Infanticide, rape, genocide, slavery etc... are staples of the "good" book. If you subscribe to a belief in the god of the Bible, of course not just the Bible, then you're, by default, forcing yourself into a corner in which you have to come up with a whole bunch of excuses as to how and why your god can effectively get away with such heinous acts. I did it too, I know exactly how it works. "His ways are not our ways" or "he's sovereign" or "he's so holy that he must punish sin" the list of excuses is endless, but the bottom line (for me anyway) is that I cannot in good faith, excuse the pun, believe in a god that commits such acts. Hell is merely a construct to scare people into believing, and unfortunately many gullible and vulnerable people fall prey to this tactic all the time.

So for me, as I previously expressed, I have no concern about such a place, because I am not even remotely convinced such a place exists and that is equally applicable in re to what the Koran states or any other religion where an afterlife of eternal torture exists. Why on earth would I worship someone who would even hint at such a place existing? It's a question I have pondered since losing my faith, and I can only conclude that I allowed myself to be deceived, although clearly I was not alone. Have a good day

 

[non-religious]

[Oafman] The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any of these places, so it is rational to believe that none of them exist.

Exactly. It seems like an almost simplistic point to make, but it's true. You're asking a lot of someone to place their trust in something that one cannot quantify. You can't measure faith or subject it to any form of rigorous analysis. So believers can use their faith to practice all manner of things from doing acts of charity to hating gay people, to believing in hell, but because it's "faith" it is a legitimate act.

 

[Robban]

Exactly. It seems like an almost simplistic point to make, but it's true. You're asking a lot of someone to place their trust in something that one cannot quantify. You can't measure faith or subject it to any form of rigorous analysis. So believers can use their faith to practice all manner of things from doing acts of charity to hating gay people, to believing in hell, but because it's "faith" it is a legitimate act.

If anyone knows all there is to know, which is not possible,
then there would be no need for faith in anything.
Why believe, when you already know?

Much better still, is to trust.

As for the question of why does God allow this or that?

To put it in the words of the Rebbe of righteous memory,
he said the following with tears in his eyes,

"He does not want us to know,
because if we knew, then,
we might give our consent."

 

[theFijian]

Exactly. It seems like an almost simplistic point to make, but it's true. You're asking a lot of someone to place their trust in something that one cannot quantify. You can't measure faith or subject it to any form of rigorous analysis. So believers can use their faith to practice all manner of things from doing acts of charity to hating gay people, to believing in hell, but because it's "faith" it is a legitimate act.

Everyone believes things that can't be subjected to rigorous analysis, oh apart from atheists of course.

 

[ianb321red]

So 'faith' in this context means... it's easier (meaning what exactly?) to believe something because you believe the evidence supports that belief?

I mean what I believe in is rational to my mind, and supported by evidence - whether this is theism in general or Christianity in particular.

Of course how I personally and understand evidence and arguments utilising evidence is ultimately unique to me.

It's an interesting point actually because we can talk about "the evidence for x,y and z" but ultimately we still need to believe and have faith in this evidence to being with, so there is arguably no escape to some extent from a personal subjective faith in anything really, unless we use a more systematic approach to reasoning and understanding

So as has been said anyone could say that about any belief they hold whether it be Hinduism, climate change denial, moon landing conspiracies, atheism.,Therefore it makes the "you need/have more faith to believe x,y, or z" objectively meaningless, so it surprises me that Christians are so keen to use it, then again it doesn't surprise me at all.

All true, but deductive reasoning about x,y and z is at least a starting point.

Perhaps a way of addressing this going forward is to pose the question "Is it possible to provide a sound argument FOR x,y and z?"

Can someone provide a sound argument for Hinduism?
Can someone provide a sound argument for atheism?
Can someone provide a sound argument for theism?
Can someone provide a sound argument for Moon Landing conspiracies?

What is a sound argument? An argument that is factually meaningful and ultimately based on deductive reasoning and proof..

Unfortunately, on the atheism side in particular these arguments are not usually forthcoming due to either laziness and the myth that "you can't prove a negative".
However, Bertrand Russell in his book "What is an agnostic" states that "the atheist who holds that that same god does not exist must have a deductive proof for the nonexistence of that god."

NOTE: Russell at least understands correctly what an atheist is "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not."