Is Religion a Scam?

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/2

TruthSeeker60;7716760:

In the post you were quoting, I was referring to Tonyrey, who was essentially arguing that his religious beliefs don’t need evidence.

False!

Here’s the evidence that you were, essentially, trying to argue in this discussion that you didn’t need evidence for your religious beliefs:

TruthSeeker60;7646098:

THIS IS VERY WRONG. I want to be loud and clear with this point because it is elementary, yet fundamental.

A person most definitely does not

have to prove an alternative in order to not believe what is being proposed.

If you told me that you were abducted by an extra-terrestrial, I do not need to provide an alternative explanation to not believe that you actually were abducted. Rather, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who thinks you were abducted by extra-terrestrials to prove it.

Not in every case . . .]

This is evidence that you were, essentially, trying to argue in this discussion that you didn’t need evidence for your religious beliefs because here you reject, in some cases, that one may justified in not believing without being able to disprove your religious beliefs. If you think that in the cases involving your religion, that one may not not believe without being able to disprove the beliefs, you’re essentially saying that one may believe without evidence either way (or in other words, believe without evidence).

A “condition” is not necessarily “a condition of being”. It may refer to a **non-existent **situation whereas “a condition of being” describes an actual state of affairs - either mental or physical.

Sure, it may describe something that does exist, but a description is not a “thing” that “exists” just like the conceptual plans for a house is not be a “thing” that “exists”, although the house may exist.

What does the abstraction refer to?

What the object of an abstraction is is irrelevant because an abstraction is not a “thing” that “exists” is reality regardless of whether or not the object of that abstraction is a thing that exist in reality.

To “exist” means to manifest in some way in reality.

TruthSeeker60;7716765:

Truth is

the correspondence of a statement to reality, but correspondence is not a “thing” that “exists”. It’s an abstraction.

Thoughts, beliefs and decisions are also abstractions. Don’t they exist?

Thoughts, beliefs, and decisions, as far as the evidence demonstrates thus far, are functions of the brain. They may be “things” that “exist” in a similar sense that one may say that flight is a “thing” that “exists”. Are there airplanes that fly and brains that think, believe, and decide? Certainly. However, these are functions, not entities.

Thinking that flight, thoughts, beliefs, and decisions are entities or “things” that actually “exist” is like thinking that jogging is an entity or “thing” that actually “exists” because it’s a noun. However, not all nouns are entities.

TruthSeeker60;7716765:

I’ve already told you that by “evidence” I mean anything that can be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true. Can something be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true if it cannot be detected in any way? If so, provide an example. If not, then you’re in agreement with me on this issue.

How about your mind? How can that be detected?

What is typically called the “mind”, as far as the evidence shows thus far, is synonymous with the brain. We know that when the brain is damaged, the “mind” (which you haven’t defined) loses functionality.

We can observe the brain in many ways, and observe how changes in the brain effect functionality (thus, observing changes in what may be called the “mind”).

CONTINUED…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/2

tonyrey;7717287:

I’ve asked you to define this term you’re attacking. Depending on how it is defined, I may or may not fit under it. Thus, until you specify what you mean by “materialism”, you’re attacking a straw man

.

Materialism is the belief that only material objects exist and that intangible realities like minds, beliefs and decisions are myths.

I’ve already said that all the evidence we have thus far shows that beliefs and decisions are functions of a working brain, which may be called a “mind”. Now if “materialism” includes the acceptance that calling beliefs and decisions “things” that “exist” is equivication that falls under the fallacy of reification, I may or may not be a “materialist” depending on what other positions fall under “materialism”.

TruthSeeker60;7716765:

It’s funny how far some people will go to argue that their religious beliefs don’t require evidence, when they would use evidence for virtually all other aspects of their lives!

It’s funny how far some people will go to argue that their irreligious beliefs don’t require evidence . . .]

At this point in this discussion, I’m trying to figure out if you are a Christian who like using straw men to dishonestly attack those who you disagree with, a Christian who repeatedly misinterprets me due to being genuinely confused, or an atheist who is having fun trolling by saying all these things you know are ridiculous arguments based on misinterpretations. I’ll continue, for a little longer, to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you’re just confused, rather than having a character problem.

Here you are confusing a negative belief with the lack of acceptance of a positive belief. I believe in a god to the degree that the claim “a god exists” is, as far as I can tell, supported by evidence. I have found the evidence for a god to be either terrible or non-existent. Of course, if the particular god is unfalsifiable, I cannot believe the claim that that god doesn’t exist just like I cannot believe the claim that the invisible, intangible, great fairy doesn’t exist. However, in both cases, I’m justified in not believing (or “dis-believing”) due to lack of evidence.

BTW A democracy is a form of government in which citizens accept the **truth **of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - and the probability that the majority of their representatives will decide what is right and just for their society because all views are considered.

I don’t want to get too caught up in definitions, but a democracy is a government in which the people have power, directly or through representatives. Accepting the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity is not part of the definition of democracy.

But let’s recall how this talk of “democracy” came about. You seemed to think that the popularity of a belief can reverse the burden of proof for a claim. You cited the “democratic principle” in making this point. I pointed out that democracy is a form of government in which citizen have power by being able to choose government actions, either directly or through representatives, not a method for determining what is actually true. If a democracy is a method for determining whether or not a claim is true based off of popularity, rather than a governmental system in which a citizen has a say in governmental actions, then I reject it as a method for determining what is true.

One should not accept a claim without evidence but nor should one accept a counterclaim without evidence.

Right. However, I don’t think you understand that lack of belief (or disbelief) is not the same as accepting a negative claim.

• and popularity can reinforce evidence.

Perhaps this is the case if, and only if, the claim has already met it’s burden of proof. However, popularity does not mean a claim is true and does not reverse the burden of proof. Evidence is needed for a claim, regardless of popularity, for belief in that claim to be justified.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

The problem with your theory is that everything comes down to evidence, which for some people is apparent in the way God abides in them. For other people like yourself that is delusional.

The problem is that a mere inner feeling within one’s mind that something is true cannot be evidence for the existence of an entity outside one’s mind.

Having an inner feeling that there are people who are plotting to kill me is not evidence that there actually are people plotting to kill me. To determine whether or not people are plotting to kill me, I need information from outside of my mind to verify that there is a genuine threat.

If you don’t want God to exist, you’ll find plenty of reasons not to believe in Him. But one thing He is not going to do is appear to you in person without your first believing in him in your person.

My reason to not believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god. If there is a god who chooses to not to leave me evidence that he exists, then I would say that he doesn’t care if I believe in him.

As Pascal said, with humans we must know them in order to love them. But with God you must love Him in order to know Him.

I could say the same thing about the invisible, intangible, great fairy.

When I did believe that a god exist, and that that god was Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, I did love them. However, since then I have been convinced that the evidence for their existence is lacking.

I suspect God is not going to prove Himself to you. And I suspect you are not going to prove yourself to God. The bottom line is, what if there is a God, and when you die, you have not proven yourself to God?

Perhaps there would be a god who would reward those who had the audacity to not believe in him. This seems just as rational (or irrational) as a god choosing whether to reward or punish someone for all eternity based off of whether they do believe in him. If this were the case, believers would be risking everything by believing.

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever.

Anyways, I see Pascal’s Wager as an attempt to get someone to believe by using threats. Plus, if a person believed in a god only because of a cost-risk analysis (leaving aside for a moment whether beliefs are voluntary at all), I think an omniscient god would see through that.

 

[FernandoRATM]

I read once that over 98% of all the people who ever lived believed in some “version” of God. The existance of God was not denied as it is with the atheists. Could they all be that wrong???

Quite an undoubtebly yes/no/maybe question. 1000 years into the past everyone 98+% of people believed that the earth was flat. Is it? That is a question for every person to as themselves whether or not they want to believe the “truth” or the “truth”. It is each persons purpose to decipher which one is which and what do YOU really think.

 

[JVSantos]

Quite an undoubtebly yes/no/maybe question. 1000 years into the past everyone 98+% of people believed that the earth was flat. Is it? That is a question for every person to as themselves whether or not they want to believe the “truth” or the “truth”. It is each persons purpose to decipher which one is which and what do YOU really think.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty. I’ll pray for you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

My reason to not believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god. If there is a god who chooses to not to leave me evidence that he exists, then I would say that he doesn’t care if I believe in him.

He left you plenty of evidence in Christianity. Apparently you once saw the evidence. It wasn’t convincing. You say also that you loved God, what made you stop loving Him? If you really loved God there is no question that He would have revealed himself in your heart. From then on, you would have been powerless to resist Him.

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever.

You say that you have searched for it. How do you know you have found it but buried it because you did not want to see it? God does not refuse knowledge of himself to anyone. Why would He?

No, he doesn’t send you to be tortured. You would be sending yourself to be tortured because in life you expressed the desire to have nothing to do with Him.

Wish granted. God is not a tyrant that you should be obliged to be with Him forever when you want nothing to do with Him.

It is real foolishness to say God does not exist because He has not proven Himself to you. You believed in Him once. What’s holding you back? Proof? What kind of proof? A miracle?

He does those every day. You just don’t see them as miracles because you have been seduced by scientism or cynicism or some other ism. You think?

 

[Pieman333272]

Quite an undoubtebly yes/no/maybe question. 1000 years into the past everyone 98+% of people believed that the earth was flat. Is it? That is a question for every person to as themselves whether or not they want to believe the “truth” or the “truth”. It is each persons purpose to decipher which one is which and what do YOU really think.

No, that’s a myth. People already knew the earth was a sphere based on shadows. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

 

[neisan]

My reason to not believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god. If there is a god who chooses to not to leave me evidence that he exists, then I would say that he doesn’t care if I believe in him.

He left you plenty of evidence in Christianity. Apparently you once saw the evidence. It wasn’t convincing. You say also that you loved God, what made you stop loving Him? If you really loved God there is no question that He would have revealed himself in your heart. From then on, you would have been powerless to resist Him.

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever.

You say that you have searched for it. How do you know you have found it but buried it because you did not want to see it? God does not refuse knowledge of himself to anyone. Why would He?

No, he doesn’t send you to be tortured. You would be sending yourself to be tortured because in life you expressed the desire to have nothing to do with Him.

Wish granted. God is not a tyrant that you should be obliged to be with Him forever when you want nothing to do with Him.

It is real foolishness to say God does not exist because He has not proven Himself to you. You believed in Him once. What’s holding you back? Proof? What kind of proof? A miracle?

He does those every day. You just don’t see them as miracles because you have been seduced by scientism or cynicism or some other ism. You think?

I’m really sorry to interrupt, but when you said “Apparently you once saw the evidence”, it would have been better to combine it with the next sentence with a comma. Sorry, but a stint in Advanced English has turned me into a member of the grammar police.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

It is not unremarkable for people to believe religion is a scam, without their own Matthew 16:17, is it?

 

[neisan]

I think the athiest was just being a jerk. What was the Church scamming people into? Giving money to learn our ways? We’re not scientologists, so he needs to throw those acusations somewhere else. And why just Christians? What about that damned caste system institued by the Hindu religion?

Oh, and pardon my french.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7719444:

My reason to not believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god. If there is a god who chooses to not to leave me evidence that he exists, then I would say that he doesn’t care if I believe in him.

He left you plenty of evidence in Christianity. Apparently you once saw the evidence. It wasn’t convincing.

I grew up believing the doctrines of Christianity because that is what my parents taught me. When I became a young adult, I searched for evidence to justify my beliefs, and found them lacking, so I eventually stopped believing. If there is evidence to justify Christian beliefs, I am unaware of it.

You say also that you loved God, what made you stop loving Him?

I never stopped loving him until after I realized that I had no justification for believing that he actually exists.

You say also that you loved God, what made you stop loving Him? If you really loved God there is no question that He would have revealed himself in your heart. From then on, you would have been powerless to resist Him.

First, this is making the assumption that the god actually exists. I mean, have you considered that he hasn’t revealed himself to me because he doesn’t exist?

Second, even if I had an overwhelming inner feeling that there is a god, this does not necessarily mean that the god exists. An inner feeling, regardless of how strong it is, cannot be verification of a claim about the reality outside of one’s mind. Also, many people of other religions have similar feelings about their gods, which you don’t believe in.

TruthSeeker60;7719444:

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever

.

You say that you have searched for it. How do you know you have found it but buried it because you did not want to see it?

That question could be asked about any claim. You could ask the same thing about the great, invisible, intangible fairy.

But seriously, I want to know what’s true and what isn’t. If there’s a god, I want to know. If there isn’t a god, I would want to know that as well.

God does not refuse knowledge of himself to anyone. Why would He?

Perhaps because he doesn’t exist.

If a god did exist, and he was omniscient, it would be pretty easy for him to convince anyone he wants that he exists.

TruthSeeker60;7719444:

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever

.

No, he doesn’t send you to be tortured. You would be sending yourself to be tortured because in life you expressed the desire to have nothing to do with Him.

NO! Reread what I’ve written. If my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence (not due to a desire to have nothing to do with him as you arrogantly assert), the god chooses to not give me evidence for his existence, and I am tortured forever for nothing more than not believing he exists, then that god chose to have me tortured forever by refusing to give me evidence for his existence.

Anyways, there is no logical connection between not believing in a god and going to hell to suffer forever.

It is real foolishness to say God does not exist because He has not proven Himself to you.

That’s not what I said. I said I don’t believe in a god (as opposed to claiming that he doesn’t exist) due to lack of evidence.

You believed in Him once. What’s holding you back?

I’ve told you and others countless times on this thread that the reason I don’t believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god.

As far as what evidence would convince me, it won’t be anonymous texts that contain embellished stories of a god-man written long after the claimed god-man existed.

He does those every day. You just don’t see them as miracles because you have been seduced by scientism or cynicism or some other ism. You think?

Or how about a lack of evidence for a miracle?

Every time I research a claimed miracle, I find evidence that disproves it or at least supports a reasonable explanation, or a lack of evidence in general.

I think the athiest was just being a jerk.

If you were referring to the atheist on The Factor, I’m largely in agreement with you. I think that it can be condescending for an atheist to say something like, “religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts,” just like it can be condescending for a Christian to imply to a former Christian that he’s no longer a Christian because he no longer loves God.

 

[honestquestions]

TruthSeeker60 has makes more sense and has a better argument. I’m with him.

 

[Pieman333272]

TruthSeeker60 has makes more sense and has a better argument. I’m with him.

You were always with him. Even before you met him, you were with him. Are you sure you aren’t analyzing with bias?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

If a god did exist, and he was omniscient, it would be pretty easy for him to convince anyone he wants that he exists.

This is the usual argument of atheism. You want G od to appear in person and perform a miracle just for you … but you would still think you had a dream, wouldn’t you? Or better yet, a nightmare?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

honestquestions

TruthSeeker60 has makes more sense and has a better argument. I’m with him.

Well, it’s plain that’s not much of an argument in itself.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[Abba]

Edowitz,

You are welcome to discuss all of your objections and I suggest you start a separate thread with your post. Otherwise, you are spamming. You can’t just go to different threads and post your post as if it was a declaration that can stand on it’s own. You need to be open to discussion.

Thank you,

Abba

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

If a god did exist, and he was omniscient, it would be pretty easy for him to convince anyone he wants that he exists.

true. God did not have to lift a finger per say to convert Paul or Blaise Pascal for example. But the underlying premise of pascals pensees is that God intentionally remains hidden from certain people. The reason for this is rather logical if one is familiar with the character and nature of Christ. The vast majority of people rejected God when he was in the flesh so would most people accept him if he revealed himself in the form of the Holy Spirit? No way. A revelation of this kind to the entire world would only inspire Satanism en masse. I speculate that God remains hidden out of mercy- to reduce the amount of suffering that will take place in hell. At least nonbelievers will be able to claim ignorance or invincible ignorance at the final judgement which should mitigate their suffering in hell.

God.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

To elaborate further on the point I made in my last post. You have to examine the lives of the people to whom the existence of the Roman Catholic God was made known. Paul, St.Theresa of Avila, Blaise Pascal, just as an example, all accomplished works that led to the spread of Roman Catholic doctrine. In other words, it seems like God reveals himself to people he knows will benefit His cause and yield him some type of profit. In the case of Pascal, a brilliant mathematician and thinker, his mystical conversion (a vision of hell and the words “Fire. God of Abraham and Issac, not the gods of philosophy.”) caused Pascal to formulate writing and arguments that have saved many from eternal torment and has given intelligent, thinking people the opportunity for eternal bliss.

So the reason God may have not revealed himself to you personally may be because:

a)you may reject Him after given full knowledge of his existence and encourage others to follow suit. or

b) giving you knowledge of His existence will not profit or only minimally profit Him. or

c) God intends to reveal himself to you at a future time in your life when you are better prepared spiritually and intellectually to deal with the Truth and some of the perceived “harsh” logical implications of how a supremely Just Being must deal with a world of pervasive wickedness.

I’m really hoping that it is c and that your current experience here is part of the spiritual maturation process.

NO! Reread what I’ve written. If my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence (not due to a desire to have nothing to do with him as you arrogantly assert), the god chooses to not give me evidence for his existence, and I am tortured forever for nothing more than not believing he exists, then that god chose to have me tortured forever by refusing to give me evidence for his existence.

Wrong. This is not what Roman Catholicism teaches, which makes it explicitly clear to everyone here that you do not know or understand the position of your “opponents” which makes a fruitful debate with you…problematic…shall we say. This is a prime example of the strawman fallacy in action. I am not accusing you here of a fault, I am only hoping to inspire a deeper curiousity into our particular faith.

Anyways, there is no logical connection between not believing in a god and going to hell to suffer forever.

You are absolutely correct, which should make our faith seem more logical to you because Catholics do not believe that people go to hell for “atheism” in and of itself. Atheism alone is not the disease itself; it is only a symptom of much more pernicious sickness. And I am not using the sickness metaphor to belittle you. It was Plato who first said that “Atheism is a disease of the soul.” But atheism is not the cause of the disease just like a fever is not the cause of the flu. It is merely an expression of it.

If you go to hell, it will not be because you reject 2,000 years of western thought and tradition, the evidence for the divinity of Christ (which I posted earlier in this thread), or because you believe that it is not 2011 AD( in the year of our Lord), but rather, the year 13,000,000,000 ITYOMN(* in the year meaningless nonsense*).

It will be because you are a liar, a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and an idol worshiper by Catholic standards. For clarification on these standards, see the sermon on the mount in Matthew. All Catholics, myself included, are all of the above things. The only difference between someone like yourself and roman Catholics, is that we try to take advantage of the sacraments, specifically the sacrament of penance, and are able to receive full or partial absolution for our trespasses against our fellow man courtesy of the infinite divine mercy of God.

In short see Romans chapter 2. You go to hell primarily for injustices committed against your fellow human beings because this offends God.

However, someone like yourself, who lives in the information age, probably has a public library card, and has the luxury of philosophy and internet debate with educated informed Catholics, may be sentenced to hell on the basis of Atheism alone, but this is just my own speculation.

 

[shoe]

I grew up believing the doctrines of Christianity because that is what my parents taught me. When I became a young adult, I searched for evidence to justify my beliefs, and found them lacking, so I eventually stopped believing. If there is evidence to justify Christian beliefs, I am unaware of it.

A person cannot possibly know all the evidence in the universe for or against God. And so a person cannot logically say that he or she has searched all the evidence, or enough evidence, to say that evidence does not exists to justify a belief in God.

First, this is making the assumption that the god actually exists. I mean, have you considered that he hasn’t revealed himself to me because he doesn’t exist?

However, if God exists, I imagine that He would be able to reveal Himself or not reveal Himself to anyone He wishes. On the other hand, if a person has a world view that excludes the existence of God, than any revelation of God would probably be dismissed out of hand.

I’ve told you and others countless times on this thread that the reason I don’t believe in a god is lack of evidence for the existence of a god.

But not believing in God because of lack of evidence is not evidence at all but an opinion.