The Fear of Hell

[OneSheep]

Indeed.

I like to tell atheists: I reject the same god you do.

Cool! I like that, and will remember it!

 

[PRmerger]

re: “Incidentally, rstrats, would you mind learning how to use the ‘QUOTE’ feature?”

Actually, I would. I prefer the way I’ve always done it.

Sadly, then, our dialogue must cease.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

As Sartre pointed out, it impossible to be uncommitted. In practice we either live as if God exists or we don’t. To ignore amounts to reject…

Indeed. Either atheism is true or it is false. There can be no uncommitted opinions.

 

[rinnie]

Objection would be applicable to a position of opposition. As indicated in #582 if you’ve got a god-concept that you assert that’s fine by me. I am not opposed to that so long as it’s not negatively impacting me. While I am not necessarily opposed to the god-concepts that others may have to present I haven’t yet been convinced by them either. A lot of people I know are Christians, and they have their various Christian god-concepts that they assert. They know that don’t, but that doesn’t seem to be unimportant in our interactions.

See here is where the problem exists. You said you are not necessarily OPPOSED to the god-concepts nor CONVINCED. So the answer is clear you don’t deny Christ, but yet you do.

Because you cannot say you accept Christ if you are not convinced, nor can you say you reject him totally, which is what you want us to say you are saying so you can attack us.

I have seen it happen too often here. I can see now why most people don’t get involved in these threads, and that they are useless. Simply because you don’t even have an objective.

I can see now, where God knows this also, and why he tells us to stay away from it. It is unproductive in many levels.

 

[rstrats]

PRmerger,
re: “Sadly, then, our dialogue must cease.”

That’s fine, because there is nothing more to be said about the meaning of “atheism” - it is simply a condition of being without theism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s fine, because there is nothing more to be said about the meaning of “atheism” - it is simply a condition of being without theism.

Atheism is a choice, and it chooses to be without God.

Agnosticism is also a choice, and it too chooses to be without God.

The only difference is that atheism claims to know there is no God, while agnosticism claims not to know whether there is or is not a God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You said you are not necessarily OPPOSED to the god-concepts nor CONVINCED.

Correct.

So the answer is clear you don’t deny Christ, but yet you do.

Note sure of which sense of “deny” you mean here, but okay. There are aspects that almost seem to border on apatheism.

Because you cannot say you accept Christ if you are not convinced, nor can you say you reject him totally, which is what you want us to say you are saying so you can attack us.

I never have nor do i have any plans to arrack anyone. (i neither care to, nor do i think such behaviour is allowed here). But if that is what you suspect act accordingly.

I can see now, where God knows this also, and why he tells us to stay away from it. It is unproductive in many levels.

Chao.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[rstrats]

CharlemagneIII,

re: “…atheism claims to know there is no God…”

That is categorized as strong atheism.

re: "…while agnosticism claims not to know whether there is or is not a God. "

That is correct. However, it is also categorized as weak atheism. Both categories do not have a belief in a supreme being.

re: “Atheism is a choice…”

Are you saying that you could right now, while you are reading this, consciously choose to believe that a supreme being doesn’t exist?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The only difference is that atheism claims to know there is no God, while agnosticism claims not to know whether there is or is not a God.

Beyond all that is the Reality of this moment.

To the reader:

If we want to fathom the nature of this particular moment, we can begin with the observation that fundamentally its reality is our existing in relation to one another.
Stop for a moment, dreaming about molecules, infinite spaces and times, or whatever reverie your imagination might want to take you.
What is happening here and now is an organization of this little bit of creation around acts of will on my part and yours.
You and I are relating to one another in this moment.

Although they are aspects of the same underlying reality, everything else is peripheral to this fact:

• the monitor
• language
• time
  I am communicating with you as a result of the creative potential which has been granted me as a human being…
  I am trying to give you something that has worth. I am engaging in a charitable act as much as I am able, given our individual and shared circumstances.

Let us label this act, one of love.
Love in the sense of communion through a giving of oneself is the ultimate aim of relationship.
This aim constitutes a return to the Source.
The entire awesome happening, everything we have and will experience, everything that lies beyond that, is brought forth through an act of transcendent love.
Love lies beyond the universe itself,
just as my words are coming forth from a will that lies beyond them and all the physical manifestations that come together to create this experience you are having.

That Love, who is God, brings all this mystery including the possibility of our own finite acts of creation, into being.
Christianity reveals how an infinitely loving God who is Goodness and Beauty itself, is compaitble with this world so filled with suffering, evil and ugliness.
It describes the nature of sin - the corruption of the will that has brought death into the world and with which we collude to perpetuate.

Back to the OP:
Satan and his followers construct hell through acts of will which run counter to God’s will which seeks our freedom, happiness and eternal life.
It is so simple to pull out of the dive; one need only ask. That said, it will involve a struggle.
Existence is . . . WOW!!! . . . very serious business!

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying that you could right now, while you are reading this, consciously choose to believe that a supreme being doesn’t exist?

That question is based on the absurd presupposition that unless choices are made at every moment they don’t exist!

 

[PRmerger]

The only difference is that atheism claims to know there is no God, while agnosticism claims not to know whether there is or is not a God.

Indeed.

And agnostics ought to consider the arguments for God’s existence, since they’re not sure if there is or is not a God.

And atheists can’t really be atheists…for certainty that God doesn’t exist requires omniscience…something I doubt any atheist claims for herself.

 

[rstrats]

tonyrey,
re: “That question is based on the absurd presupposition that unless choices are made at every moment they don’t exist!”

If beliefs can simply be engendered by consciously choosing to have them, then why do you say that they can’t be engendered at any moment? Can you consciously choose to believe things?

 

[rstrats]

PRmerger,

re: “And agnostics ought to consider the arguments for God’s existence, since they’re not sure if there is or is not a God.”

And they would also fall into the category of a weak atheist.

re: “And atheists can’t really be atheists…for certainty that God doesn’t exist requires omniscience…”

That is incorrect. They can believe, feel certain, that a supreme being doesn’t exist. That would put them in the category of a strong atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you saying that you could right now, while you are reading this, consciously choose to believe that a supreme being doesn’t exist?

Not right now, because I have consciously made another choice. It is not possible to choose to believe and to not believe at the same moment. Right?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And atheists can’t really be atheists…for certainty that God doesn’t exist requires omniscience…something I doubt any atheist claims for herself.

They do not claim certainty, but perhaps near certainty.

At least to hear them talk, they often seem belligerent for the cause!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That is incorrect. They can believe, feel certain, that a supreme being doesn’t exist.

You are right. Someone can have the feelings of strong certitude without having access to the knowledge about the thing for which one feels certain. Ex: a someone may feel certain about the lottery numbers that she plays.

 

[Bradski]

The decision not to believe in God is not based on evidence, but rather on arrogant and willful desire to deny God.

It is not possible to make a decision not to believe. What one does is make a decision on whether the evidence for holding a belief (or not holding it) is valid. Or at least, convincing enough to be entertained. I’m sure you understand the difference. And I think that Psalms 14 is correct. Even Dawkins would agree with it.

Not to mention that this is continuously being explained to you:

But as I wrote earlier, the argument is moot because a person can’t consciously choose to believe things.

The atheist and the strong atheist both have to deny the existence of God, which is the point you refuse to make.

That’s not correct. I class myself as an atheist as opposed to a strong atheist (and I must admit to finding these semantic discussions a little tiresome). But I think PR asked earlier for an answer to the question: Does God exist. I would say (being very specific) that I didn’t know. But if the question was ‘do you believe in God’, I would say emphatically no.

My own distinction between the two is that the atheist does not believe in God(s), but is indifferent about whether others do; whereas the strong atheist not only does not believe in God, but actively campaigns against those who do (such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et.al.).

To muddy the already muddy waters still further, I think what you are describing is a militant atheist. And throwing yet more mud into the water, I do class myself on occasions as such, but that generally refers to my objection to religious incursions into secular matters, not necessarily connected with my lack of belief in God.

 

[oldcelt]

It is not possible to make a decision not to believe. What one does is make a decision on whether the evidence for holding a belief (or not holding it) is valid. Or at least, convincing enough to be entertained. I’m sure you understand the difference. And I think that Psalms 14 is correct. Even Dawkins would agree with it.

Not to mention that this is continuously being explained to you:

That’s not correct. I class myself as an atheist as opposed to a strong atheist (and I must admit to finding these semantic discussions a little tiresome). But I think PR asked earlier for an answer to the question: Does God exist. I would say (being very specific) that I didn’t know. But if the question was ‘do you believe in God’, I would say emphatically no.

To muddy the already muddy waters still further, I think what you are describing is a militant atheist. And throwing yet more mud into the water, I do class myself on occasions as such, but that generally refers to my objection to religious incursions into secular matters, not necessarily connected with my lack of belief in God.

I hope you aren’t expecting a logical response.

John

 

[Bradski]

I hope you aren’t expecting a logical response.

I think that’ll depend on who the respondee is, John.

 

[openmind77]

Atheism is a choice, and it chooses to be without God.

Agnosticism is also a choice, and it too chooses to be without God.

The only difference is that atheism claims to know there is no God, while agnosticism claims not to know whether there is or is not a God.

I am not quite sure how a thread about ‘the Fear of Hell’ has deteriorated into a discussion on atheism (which I thought was not even allowed).

But just to add my 2-bits on both subjects and get back on topic:

It is totally incorrect to assume that God prefers believers to non-believers or even cares whether you believe in him or not. The criteria for whether someone enters the kingdom of heaven is very simple - it is clearly specified in Mathew 25:31-46, and that does not mention anything about what you believe.

When the Christ said that the only way to the Father is through him, he did not mean that only Christians or even only believers get to meet the Father.

At the appropriate time, the Christ will take everyone who is qualified to the Father - that includes non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, socialists, communists - whoever you assume will not make it. The criteria is simple and complete as specified in Mathew 25:31-46, and whether you are a strong or weak believer or a non-believer is immaterial.

But if someone thinks that the poor do not deserve some sort of help (public or private), then I am afraid, they are at the grave risk of ending up in hell (just read those verses carefully).