Am I going to Hell?

[Kathrin]

Only slightly higher…

Now, can you explain how Atheism places a high value on the fair treatment of human beings? If I understand Atheism correctly, you and the “thoughtless, murderous criminal” are 100% equivalent - you will both rot in a box (or not, if that’s your preference) at the end of your life, and there is no reason for repentance…unless it brings you some selfish benefit. Correct?

I must say something ehre. I am not an Atheist at all, but I wouldn’t say that if somebody doesn’t believe in God and some sort of final judgement, they necessarily need to be selfish. They could be moved to trat others failry by emphathizing with them, right?

This is really something that has been on my mind… See, sometimes other people tell me something to the extent of that people (believers in God and the afterlife) only do good because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death. But really, I don’t think if I knew there were no consequences I would just go around hurting other people. Think about it. Sometimes it is difficult to make that clear to people: Yes, I am a Christian, I believe in God and Jesus and eternal life, but I also empathize with other people, put myself in their shoes, and mostly (I think) because of THAT I don’t want to hurt anybody.

Kathrin

 

[rlg94086]

I must say something ehre. I am not an Atheist at all, but I wouldn’t say that if somebody doesn’t believe in God and some sort of final judgement, they necessarily need to be selfish. They could be moved to trat others failry by emphathizing with them, right?

They could. That’s not my point. What drives a human being with absolutely no belief in a larger power? The same thing that would drive other animals - instinct. There is a parenting instinct, so certainly there are some unselfish acts. But there is no difference morally between someone who lies, cheats, steals or kills to get ahead and someone who treats others fairly. The end-result is still the same - death with no consequences. The individual may be reviled or loved while alive…that may or may not matter to them. Which one is acting “correctly” according to an Atheist outlook? Both. Basically, it’s “survival of the fittest.”

This is really something that has been on my mind… See, sometimes other people tell me something to the extent of that people (believers in God and the afterlife) only do good because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death. But really, I don’t think if I knew there were no consequences I would just go around hurting other people. Think about it. Sometimes it is difficult to make that clear to people: Yes, I am a Christian, I believe in God and Jesus and eternal life, but I also empathize with other people, put myself in their shoes, and mostly (I think) because of THAT I don’t want to hurt anybody.

Kathrin

All fine and good, but as an Atheist you would be in no place to judge someone else for not choosing to live your way. If they chose the way of someone like Hitler, you would have no moral ground to stand on.

 

[Kathrin]

But there is no difference morally between someone who lies, cheats, steals or kills to get ahead and someone who treats others fairly.

So morals only have to do with the afterlife and consequences?

(I really mean this as a question. I am NOT trying to devalidate what you are saying.)

 

[rlg94086]

So morals only have to do with the afterlife and consequences?

(I really mean this as a question. I am NOT trying to devalidate what you are saying.)

No. We are made in the image and likeness of God, so that’s where morality comes from primarily. However, Atheists don’t believe this, so they would need to explain to us where morality comes from. My contention would be that it can only be a combination of instincts and/or selfishness. IOW, the only difference between man and other animals is his mental capabilities. By its nature, Atheism has to be relativistic. Value judgments require something more than animal instinct.

At the end of the day, Atheism is “survival of the fittest” in its purest form. If something works and reaches the individual or group’s goal, then it is okay.

 

[Imagine23]

I must say something ehre. I am not an Atheist at all, but I wouldn’t say that if somebody doesn’t believe in God and some sort of final judgement, they necessarily need to be selfish. They could be moved to trat others failry by emphathizing with them, right?

This is really something that has been on my mind… See, sometimes other people tell me something to the extent of that people (believers in God and the afterlife) only do good because they are afraid of what will happen to them after death. But really, I don’t think if I knew there were no consequences I would just go around hurting other people. Think about it. Sometimes it is difficult to make that clear to people: Yes, I am a Christian, I believe in God and Jesus and eternal life, but I also empathize with other people, put myself in their shoes, and mostly (I think) because of THAT I don’t want to hurt anybody.

Kathrin

Beautiful post Kathrin! You are absolutely correct!

Yes, empathy is indeed one of the motivating factors in humans’ desire to treat other with decency. Studies have shown that it is in fact a natural sense that we have and practice, even before religious concepts are thrust upon us by our parents and older relatives.

One particular study that I recall is one in which infants were played recordings of other infants crying, and found that they would cry upon hearing the other cries, ostensibly out of a sense of concern/distress for the other babies. When the infants heard recordings of themselves crying they were able to recognize their own sounds and did not exhibit the same reaction.

 

[Imagine23]

Only slightly higher…

Now, can you explain how Atheism places a high value on the fair treatment of human beings? If I understand Atheism correctly, you and the “thoughtless, murderous criminal” are 100% equivalent - you will both rot in a box (or not, if that’s your preference) at the end of your life, and there is no reason for repentance…unless it brings you some selfish benefit. Correct?

No, you don’t understand “Atheism” correctly. (As an aside, I should note that “Atheism” does not refer to any specific movement or collection of beliefs. It simply means that you are a person that analyzes everything critically, including religion, and has not seen sufficient evidence for a supernatural creator to justify taking it seriously). When I use the term in my posts, I’m referring to this definition.

So Atheism does not require that a murderous criminal and a good citizen be thought of equally. Quite the contrary. The law abiding citizen is a much more valuable and productive member of society and should be rewarded as such in our view. The criminal should be punished for his crimes now in this life (since we don’t believe after his death he will really receive any type of punishment).

I see that some of your confusion stems from the way we view death. Yes, after the murderous criminal and I die, we will both cease to exist in the same way and biodegrate. I’m not sure why that fact would make you think that Atheists encourage activity which is counterproductive to the interests of society.

 

[Imagine23]

No. We are made in the image and likeness of God, so that’s where morality comes from primarily. However, Atheists don’t believe this, so they would need to explain to us where morality comes from. My contention would be that it can only be a combination of instincts and/or selfishness. IOW, the only difference between man and other animals is his mental capabilities. By its nature, Atheism has to be relativistic. Value judgments require something more than animal instinct.

At the end of the day, Atheism is “survival of the fittest” in its purest form. If something works and reaches the individual or group’s goal, then it is okay.

I’m not sure what you mean about morality coming from God. Please do explain. Does this mean that the bible is the source of your morals? I find that hard to believe in light of the multitude of offensive passages in the bible. Now there are some very nice passages in the bible as well, although people sometimes tend to cherry pick those, and forget about the sexist and other offensive passages.

If not the bible, then how does God tell you about what you should be doing?

 

[Imagine23]

So happy to know your not mocking us.

It’s imaginary to me in the same way that Buddha, Allah and the millions of other “Gods” are imaginary to you.

 

[Imagine23]

All fine and good, but as an Atheist you would be in no place to judge someone else for not choosing to live your way. If they chose the way of someone like Hitler, you would have no moral ground to stand on.

I’ve heard this type of slander against atheists in different forms, and it really does baffle me. It’s incomprehensible.

I believe that murdering anyone without justification (very limited circumstances would be justifiable, one for example killing in self-defense when faced with imminent deadly force) is counterproductive to a functioning society. It causes pain to the families of the victims and puts them in a position that I and my family would not want to be in. Those that commit these acts should be punished and treated harshly. Someone that does this on a grand scale, like a mass murderer is worthy of the severest punishment.

Why, please tell me why, would I be prevented from having the foregoing position because I don’t believe that an omniscient, all powerful, supernatural “God” is watching our every move, is going to put me on a cloud (or send me to a pit) after I die, and worries about whether gay men marry each other?

 

[JudieK]

Imagine- there are many places to learn about the basics of Christian morality, but it is so rich and deep that the sound bites that are provided here do not do it justice. Natural law is from God, from the beginning, and applies to all people. God’s law is written on your heart, whether you know it or not. That is why you feel compelled to do good things. Your soul knows what is right. If you are sincere about wanting to know, let me suggest a book by Dr. Scott Hahn, entitled “Reasons to Believe.” He takes morality from the beginning- for all people of all time- and gradually moves towards Christian beliefs, and then even more specifically, Catholic beliefs. It is fascinating even as an academic diversion.

Whether or not you believe in God, someday you will meet Him face to face. I have a feeling that when you die, but maybe before you are dead too long (maybe still brain waves?) , Jesus meets your soul, and puts out His hand to it. You can take his hand, or you can turn from Him. It’s your one last chance. Some people come back from these “near death experiences,” and live changed lives. Anyway- this isn’t official Church teaching or anything. I just think that God is SO loving, SO merciful, that He desires that NO ONE go to Hell. He gives you EVERY opportunity to choose Him, even at the last nanosecond of life. But we can’t know this! We walk in faith, not leaving to chance the final destination of our immortal souls.

I respect your journey in life- I would never condemn you to Hell. I don’t go around obsessing about gay marriage, either. I pray for ALL of us… that we ALL (myself included) turn towards God daily and follow Him and let go of our sinful attachments. Whether you believe me or anyone else here doesn’t matter at all. But I think it would be foolish to close your heart to the possibility of God. Remain open and ask “the cosmos” (if that’s what you think keeps the world turning) to lead you to the truth… to show you. God will recognize the invitation! I think the Eucharistic adoration suggested by others would be wonderful, but perhaps baby steps are needed. And if you really don’t feel a need or desire or a longing to know anything more about God, then I guess you’re being here is just for fun. But that’s OK, too. Judie

 

[rlg94086]

No, you don’t understand “Atheism” correctly. (As an aside, I should note that “Atheism” does not refer to any specific movement or collection of beliefs. It simply means that you are a person that analyzes everything critically, including religion, and has not seen sufficient evidence for a supernatural creator to justify taking it seriously). When I use the term in my posts, I’m referring to this definition.

Your definition must be your own, because there is only one definition I know of Atheism (from Webster):

atheism
One entry found for atheism. Main Entry: athe·ism [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?atheis01.wav=atheism’))
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

There is no requirement that an atheist “analyze everything critically.” There are plenty of atheist morons.

So Atheism does not require that a murderous criminal and a good citizen be thought of equally. Quite the contrary. The law abiding citizen is a much more valuable and productive member of society and should be rewarded as such in our view. The criminal should be punished for his crimes now in this life (since we don’t believe after his death he will really receive any type of punishment).

I see that some of your confusion stems from the way we view death. Yes, after the murderous criminal and I die, we will both cease to exist in the same way and biodegrate. I’m not sure why that fact would make you think that Atheists encourage activity which is counterproductive to the interests of society.

My point is that Atheism requires absolutely nothing. That’s why I said that “survival of the fittest” is the only moral code that could be based on an atheist viewpoint. You can hold whatever moral viewpoint you want. If you say that that a law abiding citizen is much more valuable, that is your personal viewpoint. The muderous criminal may think you are an ignorant rube and killing you is okay if he can then take everything you own and live a longer life. You are placing society’s mores above that of the murderous criminal. Atheism has no moral code, so that is your personal choice.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not sure what you mean about morality coming from God. Please do explain. Does this mean that the bible is the source of your morals? I find that hard to believe in light of the multitude of offensive passages in the bible. Now there are some very nice passages in the bible as well, although people sometimes tend to cherry pick those, and forget about the sexist and other offensive passages.

If not the bible, then how does God tell you about what you should be doing?

Two things.

1. We are made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, our ability to reason, our conscience, etc. come from God. You have it too, so any sense of morality that you’ve developed is also a gift from God. That’s why you get confused in thinking that atheism is “analyzing everything critically.”
2. Yes, we also have revelation from God in the form of the Bible and Tradition handed down apostolically.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve heard this type of slander against atheists in different forms, and it really does baffle me. It’s incomprehensible.

I believe that murdering anyone without justification (very limited circumstances would be justifiable, one for example killing in self-defense when faced with imminent deadly force) is counterproductive to a functioning society. It causes pain to the families of the victims and puts them in a position that I and my family would not want to be in. Those that commit these acts should be punished and treated harshly. Someone that does this on a grand scale, like a mass murderer is worthy of the severest punishment.

Why, please tell me why, would I be prevented from having the foregoing position because I don’t believe that an omniscient, all powerful, supernatural “God” is watching our every move, is going to put me on a cloud (or send me to a pit) after I die, and worries about whether gay men marry each other?

I never said you couldn’t have that position. I said that position is not an inate quality of atheism. By nature, an atheist is a relativist. Sure, as a society, everyone can agree that we don’t like murderers and lock them up. But, there is no way you can philosophically say that murder is wrong from an atheist point-of-view.

Atheism would mean man is equivalent in essence (not mental ability, etc.) to an animal. Animals murder. We don’t judge animals for murdering. It is “survival of the fittest.” It’s not slander…just fact. I know plenty of atheists, my brother for example, who are moral, law-abiding citizens. However, it isn’t because of his belief that there isn’t a God. It is in spite of his belief that their isn’t a God.

BTW…God doesn’t send people to a pit. We send ourselves by turning away from God.

 

[cynic]

The point is that your placing a higher value on submission to an imaginary diety than the fair treatment of fellow humans.

hmm yeah, our value is supposed to be defined by our ability to glorify God and nothing else. Hence the murderer/rapist who repents has glorified God, while the mostly ‘nice’ non-believer hasn’t.

Yes, I don’t like that either, what kind of ‘good’ God creates for the purpose of glorifying himself?

 

[Kathrin]

I should note that “Atheism” does not refer to any specific movement or collection of beliefs. It simply means that you are a person that analyzes everything critically, including religion, and has not seen sufficient evidence for a supernatural creator to justify taking it seriously

You know what though? I think by that definition, you are what is called an agnostic, not an atheist.

Kathrin

 

[rlg94086]

You know what though? I think by that definition, you are what is called an agnostic, not an atheist.

Kathrin

You may be correct Kathrin. It depends on Imagine23’s certainty regarding the existence/non-existence of God. If he is saying “God definitely does not exist,” he is an Atheist. If he is saying, “it is not possible to know, so I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God,” then he is Agnostic.

Regardless, the arguments are the same. In fact, I would argue that an Agnostic is even more relativistic than an Atheist.