The Problem of Hell v.2

[Belk]

Did you read the rest of the post? and yes most Jews, religious scholars and even atheists would agree they are two different gods. I believe the muslim god is not the god of the bible.

I would very much liked to have replied to you posts Skavau but I still haven't learned how to separate the quotes into sections like you can. and it would be very difficult for me to take on three atheists at once. plus I'm a slow typer. there's a reason I put the word noob under my name.

Anyway, it is unlikely any of us are going to change our opinions based on the conversations we have here.

I have one last question for you Skavau. you say you're an atheist because of lack of evidence. what then would you consider evidence for the existence of god? what evidence do we have to provide for you, in order for you to be convinced of the existence of god?

None that I have ever heard. Most people I have read feel they are one and the same.

God in Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Elioenai26]

Mr. Moe, in order to multiple quote someone, just click on the quote button at the bottom right of the post of whoever you want to quote, then when the window comes up, you will see the persons post with their name and some numbers in brackets at the beginning of the post and also at the end of their post you will see this: [/quote]

Simply copy and past the first set of brackets in front of whatever you want to quote and make sure you end it with the :[/quote]

That way you can multi quote someone. So say you want to quote three different sentences a person says. You section them off by beginning and ending each sentence with the copied bracket with their name and all the numbers and then the : [/quote]

Hope this helps.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As long as we are doing board mechanics ...

For those who want to show others how to do quotes, the [plain][/plain] pair allows you to type [plain][quote]This is a test[/quote][/plain] in order to get [quote]This is a test[/quote] on the screen WITHOUT having to specify "remove the spaces" or whatever.

You can click quote to see how I got [plain][/plain] on the screen.

 

[MrMoe]

What would I take as evidence of the existence of God? Empirical evidence of God or reasoned argument for his existence.

here are some definitions of empirical evidence I found:

Evidence that can be observed through the senses, it can be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted and, to some extent, measured.

Evidence that is based on experience (observation or an experiment) rather than on reasoning alone.

information we can verify with our senses.

Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis.

so could you give me some examples of something that would fall under these definitions that would prove the existence of god. please be specific

Mr. Moe, in order to multiple quote someone, just click on the quote button at the bottom right of the post of whoever you want to quote, then when the window comes up, you will see the persons post with their name and some numbers in brackets at the beginning of the post and also at the end of their post you will see this:

Simply copy and past the first set of brackets in front of whatever you want to quote and make sure you end it with the :[/quote]

That way you can multi quote someone. So say you want to quote three different sentences a person says. You section them off by beginning and ending each sentence with the copied bracket with their name and all the numbers and then the : [/quote]

Hope this helps.[/quote]

thanks, I got the hang of it now.

 

[Skavau]

Evidence that can be observed through the senses, it can be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted and, to some extent, measured.

Evidence that is based on experience (observation or an experiment) rather than on reasoning alone.

information we can verify with our senses.

Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis.

so could you give me some examples of something that would fall under these definitions that would prove the existence of god. please be specific

I don't know. Some indication of some real life phenomena that can only be explained by invoking a deity would be a start.

I'm not sure why you feel as if you have to ask other people to demonstrate your own claims for you. If you think you have a reasoned argument for God that lays credence to the claim of God then present it. If not, then you don't. It really is that trivial.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes. They do so based on their interpretation of the presented and avaliable evidence for the "good news of the gospel." They do not do so based on not desiring to be with Jesus.

You have their motives completely misunderstood.

How do you presume to speak on behalf of those who have accepted the Gospel? I would say that we do so EXACTLY because of desiring to be with Jesus! Furthermore, any other reason, (including fear of hell) is drastically inferior.

That you think people are condemned for not believing in Jesus directly tells me that you do effectively support the idea of thought-crime.

And yet the concept here, is not "thought crime." Proof: devils believe, and do tremble. (Quoting the Bible, so the assertions must be harmonious) And yet hell was created specifically for them!

So your whole "thought crime" notion has to go out the window ...

My disbelief in Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with "loving darkness."

So you assert, but do you really know what is meant by that combination of words?

 

[razeontherock]

Morally justify how me not loving Jesus and not believing in Jesus means I deserve to be tormented forever at death.

Ah, I think I see the issue here. You are confusing the facts and limitations of existence, with "moral justification." You think life should be fair? Reality has not taught you otherwise?

 

[razeontherock]

The issue is that you cannot reject something you don't believe exists in the first place.

The 2 are one and the same.

 

[razeontherock]

I don't want that but I haven't been offered anything from Jesus I could recognize.

It's really that simple. If you think that non-theists want eternal solitude, darkness, pain, suffering, etc, you're more delusional than I originally thought.

If everything good is of God, and you reject Him, what are you left with?

 

[KCfromNC]

If everything good is of God, and you reject Him, what are you left with?

Lots of things, but that's really beside the point. Until you can show that the premise of your question is correct it's useless to worry about the answer.

 

[Skavau]

How do you presume to speak on behalf of those who have accepted the Gospel?

Uh, I wasn't doing that at all.

I was in fact stating why atheists reject the "good news of the gospel". I was not speaking for why Christians accept it. There are several different answers to that.

I would say that we do so EXACTLY because of desiring to be with Jesus! Furthermore, any other reason, (including fear of hell) is drastically inferior.

I am sure many Christians do that (though that is not a particularly honest reason) but I was speaking of atheists, not Christians.

Though of course, accepting something based on fear of hell is an inferior reason by all means.

And yet the concept here, is not "thought crime." Proof: devils believe, and do tremble. (Quoting the Bible, so the assertions must be harmonious) And yet hell was created specifically for them!

So your whole "thought crime" notion has to go out the window ...

Yes, it is.

Did you read what Elioenai actually wrote? He wrote, and I quote:

Then if you die in your sins having not accepted Jesus as you Savior, you will stand condemned because you have not believed in the Name of the only Son of God.

That is thought-crime through and through. It is condemnation on the basis of disbelief. There is no other way to describe it.

So you assert, but do you really know what is meant by that combination of words?

I don't actually. It means nothing to me. I presume it is just a way of saying that I prefer evil over good, which is nonsense as well.

 

[Skavau]

Ah, I think I see the issue here. You are confusing the facts and limitations of existence, with "moral justification." You think life should be fair? Reality has not taught you otherwise?

This sounds like almost a concession. I don't expect life to be fair. I'm an atheist and I understand the fact we live in a cold heartless universe with no regard for us individually or collectively.

This however does not mean I do not expect those who do think we live in a just universe watched over by a deity to explain why it is moral for people who do not love Jesus to be tormented for eternity in hell.

If it can't be done, just say so.

 

[Skavau]

If everything good is of God, and you reject Him, what are you left with?

Everything good is not of God. False premise.

 

[Elioenai26]

My secondary contention is that anyone who vigorously defends this doctrine has serious moral problems in that they are willing to defend and approve of the potential and actual torture of billions and billions of people entirely for what they didn't think. That is the literal endorsement of permanent torture for thought-crime - punishment for what people think or don't think. I can actually think of nothing more depraved, more evil. The peak of the imagination for sadism cannot be eclipsed.

I invite all who defend this doctrine to enter this thread and morally defend the proposition that God allows people to enter hell for eternity.

• This thread does not ask anyone to defend their accuracy of their beliefs with scripture for the veracity is not under question but the morality of it is. When you argue your point I will assume for the purposes of argument that your truth-based observations are true. Granted, if it is part of your justification is that God said X in the Bible/Qu'ran, then it is relevant but only to the end of justifying it morality.

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.

Dear Skavau,

I would like to address this topic which you have initiated.

Before I begin, I think it necessary for you to shed a little light on what you mean when you say: "That is the literal endorsement of permanent torture for thought-crime - punishment for what people think or don't think. I can actually think of nothing more depraved, more evil. The peak of the imagination for sadism cannot be eclipsed."

You affirm that you believe that you can think of nothing more depraved, more evil, than this doctrine of eternal punishment.

Would you mind explaining to us your thoughts on the words: "depraved", and "evil". By explain, I mean, give us your definition of what evil and depraved is and how you came to believe that such words actually correspond to reality.

Thank you for your time in considering this request.

 

[Skavau]

Dear Skavau,

I would like to address this topic which you have initiated.

Before I begin, I think it necessary for you to shed a little light on what you mean when you say: "That is the literal endorsement of permanent torture for thought-crime - punishment for what people think or don't think. I can actually think of nothing more depraved, more evil. The peak of the imagination for sadism cannot be eclipsed."

You affirm that you believe that you can think of nothing more depraved, more evil, than this doctrine of eternal punishment.

Would you mind explaining to us your thoughts on the words: "depraved", and "evil". By explain, I mean, give us your definition of what evil and depraved is and how you came to believe that such words actually correspond to reality.

Thank you for your time in considering this request.

Something is evil if it deliberately causes harm and repression towards others for its own purpose or for no justifiable reason. Hell as described here by you and others has no purpose other than that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Something is evil if it deliberately causes harm and repression towards others for its own purpose or for no justifiable reason. Hell as described here by you and others has no purpose other than that.

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?

 

[Skavau]

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?

It is by definition the opposite of good.

 

[MrMoe]

I don't know. Some indication of some real life phenomena that can only be explained by invoking a deity would be a start.

so does this include miracles?

 

[Skavau]

so does this include miracles?

Only an event that can be explained accurately and expansively by invoking a deity and cannot be explained any other way or by any other means. A tall order, but it is for a bold claim.

An isolated and supposed abrogation of natural law that works to someones benefit does not mean that there is a God(s) or that the event can only be explained by invoking a God.

Indeed the assumption itself begs many more questions.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is by definition the opposite of good.

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