Atheist view of hell

[Vera_Ljuba]

Are you saying that Jesus was a “horrible psychopath”?

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Does a horrible psychopath invent heaven, a place of eternal happiness?

Not a significant difference. Eternal ANYTHING, the lack of change can only be horrible. If you would be deprived of all changes, you would go insane in a very short time. That is why solitary confinement is such a cruel punishment.

An oversalted dish is as bad as the one with too much sugar in it. No wonder that the saying of “varietas delectat” is still true and remains to be true. Of course there is no reason to take the Bible seriously. After all not even the church is able/willing to declare which parts are alleged to be literal and which parts are allegorical.

 

[Dorothy]

What about suffering on earth?

We can help alleviate the suffering of others, by being compassionate, and doing what we can to assist them.

When we cannot help the sufferings we endure (sickness, pain, etc.) we can endure them by offering them to Christ in appreciation for His sufferings for us. Suffering, if we allow it to, can conform us to Christ.

 

[reggieM]

Then you should explicitly differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis - because they are not the same.

It might help to read what I stated first and then what I followed with inocente with. I was looking for a response from a Catholic, so you don’t qualify there.

And finally, that only a horrible psychopath can invent a “place” of eternal suffering.

You put “place” in quotes - is that part of your point?
But beyond that, why do you think only a horrible psychopath could invent that?
Why couldn’t a kind, intelligent and wise creator invent it?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It might help to read what I stated first and then what I followed with inocente with. I was looking for a response from a Catholic, so you don’t qualify there.

It was not an answer to your question itself. It was just a kind suggestion not to make a fool of yourself. To confuse such basic categories will not earn you “brownie points”.

You put “place” in quotes - is that part of your point?

I just wanted to avoid some response which would argue that hell is not a “place”. Let me point out that the whole “heaven” and “hell” is pure speculation. There is no actual evidence that any of them exists, and IF they exist, what is the nature of their existence.

But beyond that, why do you think only a horrible psychopath could invent that?
Why couldn’t a kind, intelligent and wise creator invent it?

If you cannot figure it out, that is your problem. And it is a VERY serious problem indeed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course there is no reason to take the Bible seriously. After all not even the church is able/willing to declare which parts are alleged to be literal and which parts are allegorical.

This very simply is not true.

You are not a Catholic and your ignorance of Catholic teaching shows through.

The parts that are literal are well known to be literal. They are called doctrines for a reason.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This very simply is not true.

You are not a Catholic and your ignorance of Catholic teaching shows through.

The parts that are literal are well known to be literal. They are called doctrines for a reason.

Baloney. Show me the “Catholic Annotated Bible”, where the literal / allegorical parts are marked as such. Which verses of Genesis are literal (for example)?

 

[reggieM]

It was not an answer to your question itself. It was just a kind suggestion not to make a fool of yourself. To confuse such basic categories will not earn you “brownie points”.

Yes, I suggested that you might read what I posted.

I just wanted to avoid some response which would argue that hell is not a “place”. Let me point out that the whole “heaven” and “hell” is pure speculation. There is no actual evidence that any of them exists, and IF they exist, what is the nature of their existence.

Why do you think Jesus said that both exist?

If you cannot figure it out, that is your problem. And it is a VERY serious problem indeed.

Ok, I ask you to explain your view and you can’t or won’t. Apparently you just want to make unfounded assertions and not be questioned about them?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

And finally, that only a horrible psychopath can invent a “place” of eternal suffering.

You hope.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Baloney. Show me the “Catholic Annotated Bible”, where the literal / allegorical parts are marked as such. Which verses of Genesis are literal (for example)?

Again, your ignorance of Catholic doctrine is stunning.

Do you think the Catholic Church fails to distinguish between the Eucharist as literal and allegorical?

Do you think that Catholic Church regards Baptism as allegorical rather than a literal cleaning?

I could go on and on, but what’s the use? Everything will be more baloney to you.

You really need to stop shooting from the hip. It’s embarrassing you without your even knowing it.

 

[tonyrey]

The final question to ask is why the universe even exists. We know at one time it did not. What changed that? The atheist has no explanation that can be considered logical by his own standard of reasoning (for example, did the universe create itself?) The theist has an explanation that even the atheist can understand, and can admit the logical possibility of, while still refusing to accept it. He can admit the logical possibility of theism because he also admits, with atheism, the possible uncreated eternity of the universe. If he can admit that, he must also admit the logical possibility of an eternal creator of the universe.

The Christian view of hell as opposed to the atheist view is that there is a purpose the universe serves. The atheist view of hell is that we live in a purposeless universe.

On the gate at the entrance to this universe is inscribed, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter.”

Atheists claim to be rational in an irrational universe! How illogical can they get? It amounts to the virtual deification of homo sapiens…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists claim to be rational in an irrational universe! How illogical can they get? It amounts to the virtual deification of homo sapiens…

One of the arguments for God is the rationality of the universe and man’s ability to rationally grasp the mysteries of the universe. This was Einstein’s own conclusion. How did the universe come to have laws that were discoverable by one of its own emergent creations if that fact was not determined by a rational Lawgiver? Are the laws of the universe purely accidental, without purpose? And where is there any evidence for that when what evidence we have very much points the other way?

 

[ANV]

One of the arguments for God is the rationality of the universe and man’s ability to rationally grasp the mysteries of the universe. This was Einstein’s own conclusion. How did the universe come to have laws that were discoverable by one of its own emergent creations if that fact was not determined by a rational Lawgiver? Are the laws of the universe purely accidental, without purpose? And where is there any evidence for that when what evidence we have very much points the other way?

Einstein was an agnostic atheist who strongly opposed personal gods.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Einstein was an agnostic atheist who strongly opposed personal gods.

No he wasn’t. He was a Deist and denied he was an atheist and did not have good things to say about atheism.

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

 

[tonyrey]

No he wasn’t. He was a Deist and denied he was an atheist and did not have good things to say about atheism.

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

Einstein appreciated the immense value of life and certainly wasn’t as negative as atheists.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Einstein was an agnostic atheist who strongly opposed personal gods.

Agnostic atheist? What is that?

 

[tonyrey]

Agnostic atheist? What is that?

An oxymoron!

 

[ANV]

An oxymoron!

No I already explained, why what an atheist say you immetiatly oppose, irrationally, if I say it’s sunny you say it’s rainy even if it wasn’t. It’s not an oxymoron, I am agnostic atheist and most atheists are.

 

[ANV]

Einstein appreciated the immense value of life and certainly wasn’t as negative as atheists.

Many atheists are not what you call “negative”.
Most in fact have “positive” attitude to life.

 

[reggieM]

Many atheists are not what you call “negative”.
Most in fact have “positive” attitude to life.

That could be, but when we really question it and look at the reasons and purposes - atheism is totally negative. It’s nihilistic. Many atheists have pointed this out and some have said how depressing it is.
As for individual atheists - I don’t know but perhaps there are some even here on CAF who don’t exactly fit the description of being Mr. Sunshine. I’m thinking of one in particular.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No I already explained, why what an atheist say you immetiatly oppose, irrationally, if I say it’s sunny you say it’s rainy even if it wasn’t. It’s not an oxymoron, I am agnostic atheist and most atheists are.

No, you are an oxymoron!

Examples of oxymora:

open secret
larger half
clearly confused
found missing
liquid gas
deafening silence

You are either an agnostic or an atheist. Even Bertrand Russell refused to call himself an atheist, though he did call himself an agnostic.