Why are athiests so hated in the USA?

[Winehole23]

I think what Blake is getting at is that the idea of is inherently immoral, if we assume

1) exists and is horrible and
2) The only way to get to Heaven is to believe

One could argue that there should be criteria which rested upon the intrinsic goodness of an individual, rather than whether they believe in a certain deity or not.

(There's also somewhat tangent arguments about the morality of permanently punishing a person based on a finite amount of time.)

If you want to say idealistic ethics are more reasonable, more ethical and more self-consistent, fine. I do wonder why Blake can't seem to say it for himself...

[Blake]

Seriously?

Starts with a "B".

In this forum I have to ask.

Again, if heaven is a place with free will, then why did he bother with earth?

Why would he make his new companions suffer like this?

[Winehole23]

I find peoples' theories of an after-life fascinating.

seems like you'd have a little more to say about them if that was true

[Winehole23]

In this forum I have to ask.

Again, if heaven is a place with free will, then why did he bother with earth?

Why would he make his new companions suffer like this?

mysterious, isn't it?

[LnGrrrR]

Meh. I don't see what's inherently immoral about a notion of justice -- which is ostensibly all is about.

Depends on the version of you're referring to. You could say it's unjust to punish someone merely for lack of belief if they were morally upstanding in all other ways.

As for the intrinsic goodness business, my understanding of christian beliefs is that faith and the goodness of a person cannot be divorced. Whether they can or not seems to be a matter of religious dogma.

I'm sure you can see how that idea might be a little controversial.

And fwiw ...

"The latest round of revisionism was touched off last summer by a surprising editorial in La Civiltà Cattolica, an influential Jesuit magazine with close ties to the Vatican. , the magazine declared, "is not a 'place' but a 'state,' a person's 'state of being,' in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God." A few days later, Pope John Paul II told an audience at the Vatican that "rather than a place, indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God." To describe this Godforsaken condition, the pontiff said, the Bible "uses a symbolical language" that "figuratively portrays in a 'pool of fire' those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a 'second death.'"

http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-45.html

Interesting. Thanks for that info.

[LnGrrrR]

You're right, but for the purposes of this discussion, the "one" would be arguing with God.

Good luck with that.

I seem to remember quite a few Biblical characters arguing with God, actually.

Plus, people are arguing about the "rightness" of sending people to for lack of belief. You could say, "Well it's God's party and he determines the criteria", but that's a different argument.

[vy65]

Fair points.

I guess the larger issue I have is this: I don't know who's more stupid - Christians who take every word of the bible literally - or "atheists" (for lack of a better word) who take issue with the bible's "logic" because they read the bible literally.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess the larger issue I have is this: I don't know who's more stupid - Christians who take every word of the bible literally - or "atheists" (for lack of a better word) who take issue with the bible's "logic" because they read the bible literally.

I believe that atheists only take issue with literal bible logic because of two reasons:

1) Some Christians take the Bible literally, which most atheists think is intellectually lacking

2) A subset of these Christians try to use their beliefs to push some sort of policy that affect atheists/other religions

Of course, there are some atheists who just want to be s too.

[vy65]

I believe that atheists only take issue with literal bible logic because of two reasons:

1) Some Christians take the Bible literally, which most atheists think is intellectually lacking

2) A subset of these Christians try to use their beliefs to push some sort of policy that affect atheists/other religions

Of course, there are some atheists who just want to be s too.

Some - but then you have people like Blake who seems to be having trouble with the concept or reality of .

[101A]

In this forum I have to ask.

Again, if heaven is a place with free will, then why did he bother with earth?

Why would he make his new companions suffer like this?

What's annoying about your questions are that they are some of the toughest questions I ask myself. "Why do I believe" - because, of course, I do question.

Basically, it is this: We cannot see the goodness of God if we don't also experience sin/Satan/evil. For example, my kids have NO idea how tough the world is, or how easy I have made it for them to this point in their teenage lives. Good sized house, phones, cars when old enough - they have lived a 1%'s life. It is trite when I say it, so I DO have problems thinking of an all loving, all caring God saying it, but "they don't appreciate it".

Could also just be a bar bet with Beelzebub, tbh.

[Winehole23]

I don't know who's more stupid - Christians who take every word of the bible literally - or "atheists" (for lack of a better word) who take issue with the bible's "logic" because they read the bible literally.

and then attack believers for being inconsistent with their gloss of it.

[Winehole23]

Could also just be a bar bet with Beelzebub, tbh.

Book of Job starts roughly that way...

[clambake]

i've never had a problem with the bible's logic.

[Blake]

gehenna is a place of sacrifice, an actual geographical location

hades is interchangeable with sheol in the NT

Gehenna is the in matthew 10:28.

Also mentioned somewhere in Mark, iirc.

[LnGrrrR]

Basically, it is this: We cannot see the goodness of God if we don't also experience sin/Satan/evil. For example, my kids have NO idea how tough the world is, or how easy I have made it for them to this point in their teenage lives. Good sized house, phones, cars when old enough - they have lived a 1%'s life. It is trite when I say it, so I DO have problems thinking of an all loving, all caring God saying it, but "they don't appreciate it".

Becoming a father has given me a more nuanced outlook at all this, I think. Before, I would throw out the whole "Why even create us with the capacity for sin, if he doesn't want us to sin?" But I've come to see some of those biblical passages as God being father, allowing sin but hoping we won't.

So then, Heaven doesn't become a "do anything you want" place, but more a state of being, in which you have no desire to sin. (Akin to the free will argument we were discussing earlier.) It parallels with other religions which talk about being at peace with oneself.

That's the biggest problem I have with , is that if a soul is eternal, why would he be judged on the relatively miniscule portion of his life in which he had a body to go along with it? I would think a "just" God would provide some form of reincarnation to have another crack at it. Most fathers I know, even when their children fail, continually give them chances to redeem themselves.

[101A]

Becoming a father has given me a more nuanced outlook at all this, I think. Before, I would throw out the whole "Why even create us with the capacity for sin, if he doesn't want us to sin?" But I've come to see some of those biblical passages as God being father, allowing sin but hoping we won't.

So then, Heaven doesn't become a "do anything you want" place, but more a state of being, in which you have no desire to sin. (Akin to the free will argument we were discussing earlier.) It parallels with other religions which talk about being at peace with oneself.

That's the biggest problem I have with , is that if a soul is eternal, why would he be judged on the relatively miniscule portion of his life in which he had a body to go along with it? I would think a "just" God would provide some form of reincarnation to have another crack at it. Most fathers I know, even when their children fail, continually give them chances to redeem themselves.

Prodigal son anyone? Why would Jesus use that parable if, in fact, God would shut the door in the face of his boy, and NOT slaughtered the calf?

I think exists, but people have to choose it; they know what they are doing, they understand the ramifications, but STILL push away from God. Plenty of Christians, if not most, have real problems with my belief here; my God is MUCH more lenient, understanding, just and forgiving than the one they subscribe to. I can't believe that a "just" God would condemn some poor farmer's kid in the China who gets run over by an ox one day - and had never heard the name "Jesus". "Well, you didn't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Sorry....B'Bye".

[Blake]

What's annoying about your questions are that they are some of the toughest questions I ask myself. "Why do I believe" - because, of course, I do question.

Right, when I ask those questions to myself, I don't like the answers.

When I ask others these tough questions, they get pissed and take them as fighting words.

Basically, it is this: We cannot see the goodness of God if we don't also experience sin/Satan/evil. For example, my kids have NO idea how tough the world is, or how easy I have made it for them to this point in their teenage lives. Good sized house, phones, cars when old enough - they have lived a 1%'s life. It is trite when I say it, so I DO have problems thinking of an all loving, all caring God saying it, but "they don't appreciate it".

Could also just be a bar bet with Beelzebub, tbh.

The implication there being that God wanted man to sin.

[LnGrrrR]

I think exists, but people have to choose it; they know what they are doing, they understand the ramifications, but STILL push away from God.

Here's where I disagree. I don't think one "chooses" to have faith; I think it occurs or it doesn't. Even for people who go from faith to faithlessness, or vice versa, it's not usually a choice but an awakening, a realization.

I liken it to your preference for certain foods. Say you didn't like macaroni and cheese. Could you will yourself to like it? If you ate it for weeks on end, and kept telling yourself it was delicious, would you start to believe it? I doubt it.

Plenty of Christians, if not most, have real problems with my belief here; my God is MUCH more lenient, understanding, just and forgiving than the one they subscribe to. I can't believe that a "just" God would condemn some poor farmer's kid in the China who gets run over by an ox one day - and had never heard the name "Jesus". "Well, you didn't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Sorry....B'Bye".

You should try talking to Calvinists some day... now THAT'S strict...

[LnGrrrR]

The implication there being that God wanted man to sin.

I disagree. God most liekly doesn't want man to sin, but if he makes it easy, then it's a worthless task. It's a challenge in order to test the mettle of individuals. Why he tests some, who knows. (Again, I'm going by the idea that God is rational, and not the crazy jealous OT God.

[Blake]

I think what Blake is getting at is that the idea of is inherently immoral, if we assume

1) exists and is horrible and
2) The only way to get to Heaven is to believe

One could argue that there should be criteria which rested upon the intrinsic goodness of an individual, rather than whether they believe in a certain deity or not.

(There's also somewhat tangent arguments about the morality of permanently punishing a person based on a finite amount of time.)

I'm not sure right now what posts of mine we are talking about, but yes, I've gotten to that before.

Christian doctrine implies that good people will go to .

If true, God's an asshole.

[101A]

Right, when I ask those questions to myself, I don't like the answers.

When I ask others these tough questions, they get pissed and take them as fighting words.



The implication there being that God wanted man to sin.

At the very least, knew we would.

[Blake]

I disagree. God most liekly doesn't want man to sin, but if he makes it easy, then it's a worthless task. It's a challenge in order to test the mettle of individuals. Why he tests some, who knows. (Again, I'm going by the idea that God is rational, and not the crazy jealous OT God.

I agree.

101A was implying that God wants us to see evil because he (101A) wants his kids to see how bad some others have it.

[101A]

Here's where I disagree. I don't think one "chooses" to have faith; I think it occurs or it doesn't. Even for people who go from faith to faithlessness, or vice versa, it's not usually a choice but an awakening, a realization.

I guess you missed my (much) earlier post where I stated my belief that the choice could be made AFTER corporal death; with all options laid plainly in front of the (quite shocked non-believer).

I liken it to your preference for certain foods. Say you didn't like macaroni and cheese. Could you will yourself to like it? If you ate it for weeks on end, and kept telling yourself it was delicious, would you start to believe it? I doubt it.

I have done that exact thing with Marzipan.

You should try talking to Calvinists some day... now THAT'S strict...

Southern Baptists are my limit.

[101A]

Christian doctrine implies that good people will go to .

They don't think so....some real tortured sermons I've heard over the years....

If true, God's an asshole.

I don't think it is, and he's not.

[Blake]

At the very least, knew we would.

Pre-destination.

If you could see the future and saw that your future kid was going to be a murderer whose destiny was going to be life in prison, would you still try to conceive the kid?

Pre-destination also can be an argument against the existence of free will.