On atheists and Hell...

[Oneofthediaspora]

There have been supposedly miraculous events going on in the world since the beginning of human history. From the point of view of the unbeliever, each has an equal claim on us. And of course, as you say, until one is convinced, the significance of one particular miraculous event is not at all obvious.

I know, I know!
What can I say?
The world looks so much different from our different perspectives.
Someone I know recently converted from agnosticism to Christianity and she described the process as follows:

It was like watching the TV programme "The Office" and thinking at first that it was a documentary about office life. Then you gradually come to realise that it isn't a documentary at all but a very cleverly and humourously constructed piece of work. Once you realise its a parody, you just can't go back to thinking it's a documentary any more.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you. It certainly is not an argument of any sort. It has no deeper significance than a means to explain the difference in perspective. It lacks a fair bit, but I understood what she meant.

I would honestly love to discuss with you why I think the argument from morality is so good. It would take a significant amount of time and explanation on my part, but I plan to do it. I've even thought of writing a pretty stiff essay on it in the past, but work and being a dad and husband get in the way.
I promise I will try at some stage.

 

[BreadAlone]

I don't understand where this "imprinted on the heart of every human being" -argument comes from. I hear it alot, in different forms; "everyone knows there is a God, but e.g. atheists just actively suppress that knowledge for reason x." Why should the knowledge of God be imprinted on everyone's heart? Why not the knowledge of the Muslim God? The corresponding statement of a Muslim will have just as much truth-value as yours.

The point is, when people make that argument to other people who know that it's false (like myself), it just makes a fool of the person stating that. It might look good in print, and it might satisfy the person saying it, but it just makes a fool of him.

The same could be said of your point. "The fool says in his heart 'there is no god'." The truth is there is a faith aspect to the whole thing, but from a logical perspective, at least it makes sense, as opposed to people who believe in an unjust and merciless God who will send people to hell just for not doing good (which no one can do.).

Is there some kind of index for these "unnumerable documented cases in Muslim-dominated cultures" moving on to Christianity? I daresay the flux is reciprocated in the other direction as well.

Perhaps recirprocated in Western cultures where moral devolution teakes place, and the youth of said culture flee to the eastern religions, where they find a more thorough sense of "just deserts," as opposed to Christianity, which they equate with the evils of Western society. The difference with that example, besides all that's been already pointed out, is that there is no death penalty in Western Cultures, specifically the United States, for leaving Christianity.

 

[BreadAlone]

As I said - it's very convenient.

The beauty of the Gospel.

 

[cantata]

"just desserts,"

It's "deserts", as in, "those things which are deserved".

 

[cantata]

I know, I know!
What can I say?
The world looks so much different from our different perspectives.
Someone I know recently converted from agnosticism to Christianity and she described the process as follows:

It was like watching the TV programme "The Office" and thinking at first that it was a documentary about office life. Then you gradually come to realise that it isn't a documentary at all but a very cleverly and humourously constructed piece of work. Once you realise its a parody, you just can't go back to thinking it's a documentary any more.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you. It certainly is not an argument of any sort. It has no deeper significance than a means to explain the difference in perspective. It lacks a fair bit, but I understood what she meant.

That's fair enough.

The thing that I find frustrating is the insistence from some quarters that unbelievers are bad people if they fail to make "the leap of faith". But of course, the funny thing is that no one would make that leap unless they already believed.

I would honestly love to discuss with you why I think the argument from morality is so good. It would take a significant amount of time and explanation on my part, but I plan to do it. I've even thought of writing a pretty stiff essay on it in the past, but work and being a dad and husband get in the way.
I promise I will try at some stage.

I look forward to it.

 

[paug]

The same could be said of your point. "The fool says in his heart 'there is no god'." The truth is there is a faith aspect to the whole thing, but from a logical perspective, at least it makes sense, as opposed to people who believe in an unjust and merciless God who will send people to hell just for not doing good (which no one can do.).

Actually, the same cannot be said of my point, because mine is neutral. The religion of Christianity cannot be inferred from the outside world today - no Bible, (hence) no God, no Jesus, no miracles - but the naturalistic view of the universe can (see logical positivism). It should duly be our default - if for no other reason than there are thousands of denominations of thousands of religions to choose from (all of which have the same truth value).

Prove me otherwise - but Bible quotes don't get you anywhere (edit: that smiley's not meant to look so sarcastic )

Perhaps recirprocated in Western cultures where moral devolution teakes place, and the youth of said culture flee to the eastern religions, where they find a more thorough sense of "just desserts," as opposed to Christianity, which they equate with the evils of Western society. The difference with that example, besides all that's been already pointed out, is that there is no death penalty in Western Cultures, specifically the United States, for leaving Christianity.

^ I'd still like to see some cases, just so I could have a look at what the net flux is like in any direction. Point taken, though.

 

[BreadAlone]

It's "deserts", as in, "those things which are deserved".

Because the key concept of my posting was the spelling.

 

[allhart]

Actually, the same cannot be said of my point, because mine is neutral. The religion of Christianity cannot be inferred from the outside world today - no Bible, (hence) no God, no Jesus, no miracles - but the naturalistic view of the universe can (see logical positivism). It should duly be our default - if for no other reason than there are thousands of denominations of thousands of religions to choose from (all of which have the same truth value).

Prove me otherwise - but Bible quotes don't get you anywhere (edit: that smiley's not meant to look so sarcastic )

^ I'd still like to see some cases, just so I could have a look at what the net flux is like in any direction. Point taken, though.

All other religions are trying to attain God through merit and goals and the Bible is God's way of reaching out to us in a personal relationship.

Here is a thought as well. When you where born into the world of humanity is that all you needed? No, I don't think so! You need a place to be nurtured. A place to call home. A place of peace and of family, so is a church in these things in which you need in a spiritual walk with God.

 

[BreadAlone]

Actually, the same cannot be said of my point, because mine is neutral. The religion of Christianity cannot be inferred from the outside world today - no Bible, (hence) no God, no Jesus, no miracles - but the naturalistic view of the universe can (see logical positivism). It should duly be our default - if for no other reason than there are thousands of denominations of thousands of religions to choose from (all of which have the same truth value)

.

The knowledge of the Gospel cannot be proved outside of the Bible, but the knowledge of a Creator can be no more disproved by you than I can prove it (though, I would assert there is plenty of proof, yet that is a different debate for a different time.) I also would assert that if there is a sincere desire to seek the God that one knows through their conscience, that the gospel would be made known to such an individual (hence my reference to the converts in Muslim cultures).

Prove me otherwise - but Bible quotes don't get you anywhere (edit: that smiley's not meant to look so sarcastic )

I wouldn't dream of convincing you with the Scriptures! God does the convincing, not me!

^ I'd still like to see some cases, just so I could have a look at what the net flux is like in any direction. Point taken, though.

I don't know if there is any concrete study. I'll do some research though, as I'd be interested in the actual results also.

 

[allhart]

.

The knowledge of the Gospel cannot be proved outside of the Bible, but the knowledge of a Creator can be no more disproved by you than I can prove it (though, I would assert there is plenty of proof, yet that is a different debate for a different time.) I also would assert that if there is a sincere desire to seek the God that one knows through their conscience, that the gospel would be made known to such an individual (hence my reference to the converts in Muslim cultures).



I wouldn't dream of convincing you with the Scriptures! God does the convincing, not me!



I don't know if there is any concrete study. I'll do some research though, as I'd be interested in the actual results also.

Faith based in logic that God can't be proven or dis proven. You are correct young lady. I posted this all ready next page over, but I am reading and writing on Subjective morals, right now!

 

[paug]

All other religions are trying to attain God through merit and goals and the Bible is God's way of reaching out to us in a personal relationship.

Not wanting to debate this, let's call it a given. Still - it makes no difference. What would make personal relationship more important?

Here is a thought as well. When you where born into the world of humanity is that all you needed? No, I don't think so! You need a place to be nurtured. A place to call home. A place of peace and of family, so is a church in these things in which you need in a spiritual walk with God.

Of course I needed more than birth to come into this world. I did need nurturing, and a place to call home. Believe it or not, that is what i called home. A place of peace and of family? Home. My parents, my siblings.

Churches and "spiritual walks with God" have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand!

 

[paug]

.

The knowledge of the Gospel cannot be proved outside of the Bible, but the knowledge of a Creator can be no more disproved by you than I can prove it (though, I would assert there is plenty of proof, yet that is a different debate for a different time.) I also would assert that if there is a sincere desire to seek the God that one knows through their conscience, that the gospel would be made known to such an individual (hence my reference to the converts in Muslim cultures).

The sincere desire to seek the God that one knows through their conscience.. What would make a Christian god conform to this internal idea better than a Muslim god? or any other god for that matter? Reading Gospel, imho, will give an idea of a God that people can relate to. Obviously, since everyone's internal views of a God (that one knows through their conscience) are different to begin with, so are people's interpretations of Gospel. So both a person's internal idea of a God and that person's interpretation of, say, the Bible, change. (If you're following me .) Both of those show plasticity, both of those conform slightly to fit in with eachother. This is why, I think, place of birth has such a profound link to preferred religion - crudely put, it's a "first-come-first-served" situation.

I'd also like to add that this isn't a matter of proving or disproving anything - what I meant with my previous post was that the only viable and acceptable default position on "Everything" is the naturalistic one.

 

[allhart]

Not wanting to debate this, let's call it a given. Still - it makes no difference. What would make personal relationship more important?



Of course I needed more than birth to come into this world. I did need nurturing, and a place to call home. Believe it or not, that is what i called home. A place of peace and of family? Home. My parents, my siblings.

Churches and "spiritual walks with God" have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand!

But it does matter. Your substance of flesh and bone isn't all of what makes you who you are. Your inter strength points that out Metaphorically. There is many things you can't see that points to what is real ;however, I am not able to articulate no better than to say. You can't see the wind,but you you can see the effects of it. Nor can you see morality ,but you can see the lack of it.

 

[paug]

But it does matter. Your substance of flesh and bone isn't all of what makes you who you are. Your inter strength points that out Metaphorically. There is many things you can't see that points to what is real ;however, I am not able to articulate no better than to say. You can't see the wind,but you you can see the effects of it. Nor can you see morality ,but you can see the lack of it.

I really can't understand this post. You're suggesting because I have a conscience and other intangible characteristics, that points towards a Creator? Actually, my substance of flesh and bone is all that makes me who I am. The wind analogy is kinda vain, as is the morality one (ps "can't see morality", but can see the lack thereof?... I beg to differ).

My intangibles do not point to a Creator of any kind. In this age, we know this. Today, you can't think about your intellegence and "morality" and conscience and conclude that it must have been magicked into existence by a Higher Being.

 

[allhart]

The sincere desire to seek the God that one knows through their conscience.. What would make a Christian god conform to this internal idea better than a Muslim god? or any other god for that matter? Reading Gospel, imho, will give an idea of a God that people can relate to. Obviously, since everyone's internal views of a God (that one knows through their conscience) are different to begin with, so are people's interpretations of Gospel. So both a person's internal idea of a God and that person's interpretation of, say, the Bible, change. (If you're following me .) Both of those show plasticity, both of those conform slightly to fit in with eachother. This is why, I think, place of birth has such a profound link to preferred religion - crudely put, it's a "first-come-first-served" situation.

I'd also like to add that this isn't a matter of proving or disproving anything - what I meant with my previous post was that the only viable and acceptable default position on "Everything" is the naturalistic one.

Muslims can only secure a absolute place in Heaven in through jihad. They believe in something. We believe in God. Jihad isn't of God and heaven is God's domain (home). If you where to knock on heavens door why should he let you in? If someone you don't know knocked at your place of peace(home) and you didn't know him. You would tern them away. Along with that said, you can't live with people in different living standard as well. They must adhere to the owner of houses rule or they can't stand to live there.

 

[allhart]

I really can't understand this post. You're suggesting because I have a conscience and other intangible characteristics, that points towards a Creator? Actually, my substance of flesh and bone is all that makes me who I am. The wind analogy is kinda vain, as is the morality one (ps "can't see morality", but can see the lack thereof?... I beg to differ).

My intangibles do not point to a Creator of any kind. In this age, we know this. Today, you can't think about your intellegence and "morality" and conscience and conclude that it must have been magicked into existence by a Higher Being.

You can only regulate morality. You can not legislate morality. You can only see the effects of morality in which is seen in every choice you make,so everything is spiritual. In like God!

 

[BreadAlone]

Faith based in logic that God can't be proven or dis proven. You are correct young lady. I posted this all ready next page over, but I am reading and writing on Subjective morals, right now!

Perhaps you weren't aware, but this:

is the symbol for male.

 

[allhart]

Perhaps you weren't aware, but this:

is the symbol for male.

Forgive me. I am sorry. Very well young buck. Very handsome as well. A lady's man are you? lol

 

[BreadAlone]

Forgive me. I am sorry. Very well young buck. Very handsome as well. A lady's man are you? lol

lol forget about it. it was the CF dolly, right? I figured if it was that confusing I'd put my real pic up.

Sorry for the derail. Back to atheists in hell.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

So, you believe that God doesn't know what decision a specific person will make, and just has to make sure? Or that each and every person eventually makes the right decision, with God knowing that?

No, he creates everyone with the same ability to have freedom and free will. Everyone could repent and chose Christ if they truly wanted to.

Exactly. He ought to know better than to subject people to eternal torment for being incredulous with regards to a specific set of Bronze Age/Iron Age myths.

The things of God confound the wise. You have no standard for truth you cannot claim what truly are myths and what is not.

Under those auspices, it would be better not to witness and do missionary work at all, lest you doom unsuspecting Non-Christians to eternal torment

that really all depends. Christ said he would not come back until the gospel was preahced to all the nations and all the ends of the earth. Jesus Christ did preach to the spirits in prison who had died during the BC times as it shows in the epistle of Peter. So those who did not hear the Gospel had the opprotunity to.