The Problem of Hell v.2

[Davian]

What is your view or explanation for the existence of our awareness of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice?

Even in the absence of a naturalistic explanation, religious claims on this subject would not be excused from the requirement of evidentiary support.

 

[Skavau]

What is your view or explanation for the existence of our awareness of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice?

Our drive towards recognising the concept is both necessary as a biological component of being a sentient social species and necessary for our survival as a sentient social species.

 

[quatona]

On what basis are you differentiating between what is evil and what is good? How do you determine between the two? What makes causing harm to someone evil rather than good?

You know, whatever you or I base this notion upon, we won´t be able to convince someone who doesn´t understand this (i.e. a sociopath). We can appeal to reason, empathy, karma, consequences, and you can appeal to your God´s authority in these matters until the cows come home - to no avail.

So please stop using this script of leading questions (based on an argument from consequences) that merely distracts from the fact that your own approach suffers from the very same shortcomings.

People harming others is part of reality. You believe that a God exists. Thus, your argument that without a God people couldn´t be prevented from harming others is absurd. Neither God - if existing - nor absolute objective morality - if existing - help solving the problem of people disagreeing on what is moral, and even less they solve the problem that an extremely small minority of people (i.e. sociopaths) don´t even care about such questions.

In essence, you keep telling us that in the absence of a God and an objective absolute morality decreed by this God the world would be...exactly like it is (people disagreeing on what´s moral; people disagreeing on the source of morality, a very small minority not even caring about this issue) . You may not realize it, but you keep shooting your own foot with this approach.

 

[Elioenai26]

You know, whatever you or I base this notion upon, we won´t be able to convince someone who doesn´t understand this (i.e. a sociopath). We can appeal to reason, empathy, karma, consequences, and you can appeal to your God´s authority in these matters until the cows come home - to no avail.

So please stop using this script of leading questions (based on an argument from consequences) that merely distracts from the fact that your own approach suffers from the very same shortcomings.

People harming others is part of reality. You believe that a God exists. Thus, your argument that without a God people couldn´t be prevented from harming others is absurd. Neither God - if existing - nor absolute objective morality - if existing - help solving the problem of people disagreeing on what is moral, and even less they solve the problem that an extremely small minority of people (i.e. sociopaths) don´t even care about such questions.

In essence, you keep telling us that in the absence of a God and an objective absolute morality decreed by this God the world would be...exactly like it is (people disagreeing on what´s moral; people disagreeing on the source of morality, a very small minority not even caring about this issue) . You may not realize it, but you keep shooting your own foot with this approach.

I am saying that any talk of good and evil, of morality in general is useless for one who does not believe that God is the source of said morality.

Under the atheistic framework of biological evolution by natural selection, there is no allowance for morality. Only animal instinct.

 

[Skavau]

I am saying that any talk of good and evil, of morality in general is useless for one who does not believe that God is the source of said morality.

So you claim. No-one has any reason to believe it.

Under the atheistic framework of biological evolution by natural selection, there is no allowance for morality. Only animal instinct.

Uh, no.

There's also no such thing as a universal "atheistic framework".

 

[Elioenai26]

So you claim. No-one has any reason to believe it.

I have reason to believe it, as well as anyone else who acknowledges that objective moral values exist.

Uh, no.

There's also no such thing as a universal "atheistic framework".

How do you want me to put it? As the non-theistic view?

 

[Skavau]

I have reason to believe it, as well as anyone else who acknowledges that objective moral values exist.

You might have reason to believe it, but no-one you're talking to does so referencing it is completely pointless.

Additionally, none of this line of questioning actually defends the idea that we ought to be tortured for not believing in God.

How do you want me to put it? As the non-theistic view?

Sure. But keep in mind there are many different and unrelated non-theistic views of morality.

 

[quatona]

I am saying that any talk of good and evil, of morality in general is useless for one who does not believe that God is the source of said morality.

Useless?
I am not understanding this.
Please tell in regards to which goal talk of good and evil is useless for an atheist but useful for a theist.

Under the atheistic framework of biological evolution by natural selection,

You need to think more clearly. An atheist needn´t accept the theory of evolution, and someone who accepts the theory of evolution isn´t necessarily an atheist.

there is no allowance for morality. Only animal instinct.

Well, I don´t believe in gods, and I accept the theory of evolution. Yet, I find myself considering what´s the best thing to do day in day out. I find myself driven by cognition, instinct and feelings. So I don´t even have to take a look at the logic at which you arrive at your conclusion to know that the conclusion is wrong.

 

[UnamSanctam]

Common Arguments:

We choose to go to hell by rejecting Jesus' offer of salvation.

• This is simply untrue. I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and the offer of his sacrifice due to a lack of evidence and reasoned argument in favour of it. My skepticism on this point reflects only my convictions and has nothing to do with choosing hell. This argument also completely ignores the existence of Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastarians and plenty of other theists that have their own understanding of redemption and paradise. Do you seriously contend that they rejected heaven and opted for hell? This argument is blatant nonsense.

No, it isn't. Although the consequence of the choice is not believed at the time of choosing, it is still a result of the choice, nonetheless.
The argument stands. If a drowning man refuses a life-vest thrown to him, he chooses to drown, even though he might think he can swim to the shore.

 

[Danyc]

No, it isn't. Although the consequences of the choice is not believed at the time of choosing, it is still a result of the choice, nonetheless.
The argument stands. If a drowning man refuses a life-vest thrown to him, he chooses to drown, even though he might think he can swim to the shore.

A terrible analogy. Corrected, the man refusing the life vest would simply be walking down a street when, out of nowhere, a life vest hits him in the head. He wheels 'round, and a man is yelling at him, "Take it! It's your only hope!"

He rightly ignores this person, who is clearly insane.

You have yet to provide any evidence that we are sinking in the first place.


To say that the consequences of a choice necessarily become choices as well is a gross misapplication of the word 'choice'. Obviously nobody chooses to be tortured forever. To dance around and play semantic games to make this appear to be so is dishonest at best and disgusting at worst.

 

[Elioenai26]

A terrible analogy. Corrected, the man refusing the life vest would simply be walking down a street when, out of nowhere, a life vest hits him in the head. He wheels 'round, and a man is yelling at him, "Take it! It's your only hope!"

He rightly ignores this person, who is clearly insane.

You have yet to provide any evidence that we are sinking in the first place.


To say that the consequences of a choice necessarily become choices as well is a gross misapplication of the word 'choice'. Obviously nobody chooses to be tortured forever. To dance around and play semantic games to make this appear to be so is dishonest at best and disgusting at worst.

The analogy of drowning is an allusioin to a man being steeped in sin and wickedness and unable to reform himself of this sinful nature. It applies to you, to me, to everyone.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.
God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is anyone who understands,
Who seeks after God.
Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 53

Who can say, “I have cleansed my heart,
I am pure from my sin”? Pro 20:9

All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. Is 53:6

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. Is 64:6

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8

 

[Skavau]

No, it isn't. Although the consequence of the choice is not believed at the time of choosing, it is still a result of the choice, nonetheless.
The argument stands. If a drowning man refuses a life-vest thrown to him, he chooses to drown, even though he might think he can swim to the shore.

You don't want to finish that analogy. If we are all by default "drowning men" refusing life-vests then you have to believe that God drowned us in the first place and you have to also believe that he is the only one offering working life-vests through his agents (Christians) and that everyone else is offering defective life-vests that will kill you some other way (Muslims).

Additionally, it is not a choice. I reject the claims made by Christians because of evidence and I do so based on my non-conviction in its claims and not on choice. Belief or non-belief are not mere fancies, they make up who we are and define how we act. They are conclusions we come to in life via experience, evidence and knowledge gained. The way Christians present as if they were the same as some kind of fleeting fancy or desire makes them arbitary and non-sincere.

Be I metaphorically drowning or not, a God that would convict me for being unable to believe in him for evidentary reasons is a God not worth worshipping. A horrendous analogy that actually paints God in a very bad light and I've addressed it in this thread earlier.

 

[Skavau]

The analogy of drowning is an allusioin to a man being steeped in sin and wickedness and unable to reform himself of this sinful nature. It applies to you, to me, to everyone.

Sin was bestowed upon us. We were born into it, according to you. Born wretched and commanded to be perfect. An impossible demand with the solution a faith-based one that requires everyone to believe in complete nonsense in order to be saved. Is this justice? Is this morality? Not at all.

God is literally insisting all of humanity abandon reason and abandon their critical faculties he gave them to accept a blood sacrifice that happened in our name years ago and pass our sins onto Jesus so that we may be saved and forgiven. Not only is that an abdication of our moral duty (which is argued is important to God) but it is a completely non-moral solution in that it commands people to believe in something in which there is no evidence to believe in. The only argument in its favour seems to be that it is as good a time as any to use 'faith' an irrational pseudo-virtue.

And yet, if you're a Muslim then faith is suddenly not a virtue but a vice according to God and anyone who believes that Islam is true will be condemned alongside me.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

This is a meaningless statement. What is the "glory of God" and why are we held to such mad standards?

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

God made us and shaped our minds. He knew this would happen.

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.

This is just a smear and is completely untrue. Indeed, Elioenai if it were true then why is it better to live in some of the most secular and non-theistic nations on the planet such as Norway, Sweden, Finland?

God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is anyone who understands,
Who seeks after God.
Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 53

Why is "seeking after God" a prequesite for being non-corrupt?

 

[Davian]

The analogy of drowning is an allusioin to a man being steeped in sin and wickedness and unable to reform himself of this sinful nature. It applies to you, to me, to everyone.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.
<snip>

Are you calling people fools again, for not believing in what you cannot demonstrate to be true?

 

[UnamSanctam]

You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.

Yet, "opinion" is all anyone has to go on in this matter. Yes, that includes you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If "opinion" is all you have to go on to believe in a god, why believe?

 

[Davian]

Yet, "opinion" is all anyone has to go on in this matter. Yes, that includes you.

My opinion was not in question, it was Elioenai's.

As Tinker Grey as already said, why then believe?

 

[Danyc]

Yet, "opinion" is all anyone has to go on in this matter. Yes, that includes you.

That's lucky for us, because we don't have an opinion on the matter. We say that we don't know. You are the ones who say that you know.

We then ask you: How do you know? What information are you privy to that we are not?

And you tell us that belief is nothing more than an opinion.

Well, I suspected as much. I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Crusader05]

My take on the problem of hell is that it is unjust. Even if I spent every waking moment of my life committing sin; murder, rape, etc there is a finite amount of damage I could do. How would my finite crimes ever warrant the infinite penalties of hell?

And please spare us the equivocation and hair splitting about how god is so merciful and loving or how hell was 'prepared' etc. A god, any god, who would allow his creations for suffer eternal torment is an immoral and unjust creation of the minds of evil men.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.

Check your local news, newspaper and or television. I think you will find sufficient evidence for man's propensity towards evil displayed therein.

Are you calling people fools again, for not believing in what you cannot demonstrate to be true?

Is this the first time you've read this verse?????