Atheist view of hell

[ANV]

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.

It’s not an oxymoron, Russel for exp was an agnostic atheist, not an open secret or anything, atheists say they can’t disprove that there are no creators or gods but strongly deny the existence of personal and religious gods, and russel specifically mentioned that in his teapot analogy. a perfect descriptive definition of what an agnostic atheist means.

So I deny the existence of the gods that humanity invented over history. I’m convinced that they are unreal and religious gods in specific are just inventions, for several reasons, which makes me an atheist but I don’t know whether any other unknown possible intelligent creators exist, I don’t believe in any but unlike the religious gods, I can’t say for sure that they don’t exist, it’s not my ability to know and judge far beyond Earth and I cannot comprehend the whole universe or mutiuniverses if possible, how they work, which makes me and other atheists agnostic atheists.

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla . To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla . To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

In 1958 Russell was near the end of his life and his mental powers were in decline. This passage you quote illustrates this.

Point 1: There is no ontological equivalence between God and a china teapot.

Point 2: It is possible to prove there is no china teapot orbiting Earth. It is not possible to prove there is no God.

Point 3: Nobody cares whether there is a china teapot orbiting Earth. Nobody even cares to prove the negative. Whereas everybody is invested in deciding whether or not there is a God.

Point 4: Whether or not there is a china teapot has no effect on our attitude toward life and death. Whether or not there is a God has a profound effect on the same.

In his autobiography, Russell admits that he had lost belief in a personal God in his teen years. Clearly, he got fixated at that stage and never seriously probed more deeply into finding a relationship with God that would **prove to both his head and his heart **that God was considerably more than a china teapot orbiting Earth.

Russell’s analogy fails in every respect.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Oxymorons are usually only superficially self contradicting; that can be idioms with well known usages, which appears to be the case for most of your examples. For someone learning English might be able to understand some confusion. But given your stated background and your demonstrated command of English I don’t think that’s applicable. With the intended usage of “agnostic atheist” having been presented to you more times than I can count over the years might I suggest engaging the discussion with that intended usage applied?

 

[ericc]

Einstein was an agnostic atheist who strongly opposed personal gods.

That can’t be true because Einstein said God doesn’t play dice. At least he knew God exists. And he doesn’t play dice.

 

[reggieM]

To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

I see a contradiction in the above.

1. “nobody thinks there is a china teapot revolving between earth and mars”.
2. This is the same as believing in the Christian God.

In other words, to equate those to things as if there is the same likelihood, you should also be able to say “nobody thinks the Christian God exists”.

What is the likelihood that everybody that believes the Christian God exists is wrong?

How about all of the Catholic saints. What is the likelihood that every saint for the past 2000 years was wrong? How do you know that? What saints’ lives have you studied?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

With the intended usage of “agnostic atheist” having been presented to you more times than I can count over the years might I suggest engaging the discussion with that intended usage applied?

I think in this instance it’s not allowed to have your cake and eat it.

Either you are an agnostic, or you are an atheist.

The words clearly have different meanings.

I won’t dispute that agnostics are virtually the same as atheists so far as the importance of God in their lives is concerned. But there is an epistemological difference that cannot be whisked away by mere verbal quibbling.

Agnostic: Uncertain as to God’s existence but still searching.

Atheist: Convinced there is no God and avoiding the search.

There is a distinct difference and the difference should be honored.

No?

 

[tonyrey]

I think in this instance it’s not allowed to have your cake and eat it.

Either you are an agnostic, or you are an atheist.

The words clearly have different meanings.

I won’t dispute that agnostics are virtually the same as atheists so far as the importance of God in their lives is concerned. But there is an epistemological difference that cannot be whisked away by mere verbal quibbling.

Agnostic: Uncertain as to God’s existence but still searching.

Atheist: Convinced there is no God and avoiding the search.

There is a distinct difference and the difference should be honored.

No?

I rarely disagree with you, Charlie, but I believe many agnostics in our secular society take the easy way out and don’t bother to search.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I rarely disagree with you, Charlie, but I believe many agnostics in our secular society take the easy way out and don’t bother to search.

I’ll go with that. There are different degrees of agnosticism.

Some agnostics do search, and they are the ones who might find Christ.

Others are too indifferent to be bothered.

The same applies to Christians. Some are searching for Christ, others are too indifferent to be bothered.

Ditto with atheists. Some are rabid in their atheism, true disbelievers bent on seeing the end of religion everywhere.

Others are too indifferent to care.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll go with that. There are different degrees of agnosticism.

Some agnostics do search, and they are the ones who might find Christ.

Others are too indifferent to be bothered.

The same applies to Christians. Some are searching for Christ, others are too indifferent to be bothered.

Ditto with atheists. Some are rabid in their atheism, true disbelievers bent on seeing the end of religion everywhere.

Others are too indifferent to care.

Labels are simplistic and misleading when it comes to the complexity of personal existence.