Be honest, am I going to hell for "my" atheism?

[Foxaèr]

Many an atheist author has quite clearly and accurately revealed that theists are the type of people who do not properly understand morality due to the fact that that they support a deity that is the exact opposite of moral.

[Lek]

Why do you believe christianity's version of events over ANY other religion's?

I think that the continuing revelation of the bible over many centuries, by many different authors, is far superior to that of any other faith group.  I think it would have to have been quite a conspiracy to continue a ruse like that.  With the new testament, the dates of writing were too close to the events to have developed into legend.  I also see no valid reason for the authors and those who carried on the church traditions to risk persecution and death to carry on a story like that.  I see no gain in it for them.  Also, I believe in a God who relates to each one of us individually.  I've opened up to him and I believe he's given me the faith which I possess.  I know of no other faith which believes in a God who comes to us.  He's always some distant being.  I've had occasions when I pondered leaving the faith and have doubts from time, but there's really nothing else out there for me.

... Did you seriously just ask me that? Are you seriously unaware of the reason? Should you even be discussing morality, if you can't figure out something like that?

I literally don't think I know how to answer that question without being insultingly simple: suffering is bad because it causes suffering, and if you are able to stop suffering without expending any effort or any form of cost, as your god is able to do, but you don't, then you have allowed an immoral thing to propagate for no reason. And in some cases we're talking about suffering that god directly causes, without intervening with free will; so what you have here is a god that causes suffering for no reason.

Now, that's dealing with a conception of morality that takes into account consequences and evidence and all that... if your morality is just based on what god wants, then what you're saying by asking that question above is that you believe in a god for whom suffering is moral. Not worth worshiping, that one.

Okay.  So "suffering is bad because it causes suffering".  

A god that is omnipotent has the power to do "the right thing," to accomplish the goal you're claiming he's working toward by inflicting all this suffering, without inflicting that suffering at all. If your god cannot do that, then he is not omnipotent. You're spinning off into some irrelevant thing I didn't say, but that is the point I'm making, so please try to address that in future.

Not that I find this "god knows more than you, so there!" kind of argument to be compelling; if god isn't going to offer any evidence of what he knows, then I'm certainly not obligated to assume benevolent intent. If you don't know what your god's intentions are, how on earth can you be assuming that?

In your opinion, if God cannot achieve his goal without causing suffering, then he's not omnipotent.  I won't even try to refute that because I've already stated my opinion about that, which is not suffering is not necessarily immoral, and you've only given your own opinion. that it is always immoral.  As far as God giving us evidence about himself, it's in the bible and in the world that he created.  Many see the universe as evidence for God, but I guess everybody doesn't agree.

---

Many an atheist author has quite clearly and accurately revealed that theists are the type of people who do not properly understand morality due to the fact that that they support a deity that is the exact opposite of moral.

I really don't think that it's possible for you to define what is moral and what isn't.  What's your authority for defining morality?  Must my morality be the same as yours?  

[Esquilax]

Okay.  So "suffering is bad because it causes suffering". 

I don't often say this to the theists here, but in your case I can: you are better than this level of deliberate obtuseness. The badness of suffering is pretty inherent in what it is; suffering is defined by the negative effects it causes in others.

In your opinion, if God cannot achieve his goal without causing suffering, then he's not omnipotent.

No, in the definition of omnipotence, a god that cannot achieve its goal without causing suffering is not omnipotent, because omnipotent things do not have limitations.

I won't even try to refute that because I've already stated my opinion about that, which is not suffering is not necessarily immoral, and you've only given your own opinion. that it is always immoral.

Yes, but you've only been able to cogently defend suffering by stating that good things come through it. That's your argument, don't blame me for using it too; if suffering can only be redeemed by the positives that happen in its wake, then the positives are what is desirable, not the suffering. If those positives can be attained without the attendant suffering, as god surely could do, then there is no reason to include the suffering at all, and yet god still does.

  As far as God giving us evidence about himself, it's in the bible and in the world that he created.  Many see the universe as evidence for God, but I guess everybody doesn't agree.

The universe is evidence for the universe, and appeals to the bible are pure circular reasoning, nothing more.

---

I really don't think that it's possible for you to define what is moral and what isn't.  What's your authority for defining morality?  Must my morality be the same as yours?  

Morality isn't dependent on authority, or else it's just fiat declaration; if god is your "authority" for defining morality, then if god declared that all previously immoral things were moral, would you be bound to follow that? If so, your definition of morality is utterly meaningless.

Oh, and don't bring up that tired old "must my morality be the same as yours?" crap: if it's an argument against secular morality then it's an argument against christian morality too, as I've already pointed out to you numerous times that nobody "must" follow christian morality either, as the presence of other religions establishes pretty well.

[Pizza]

Is Lek seriously arguing over "defining morality?" That's a verbal dispute, for goodness' sake!

[Zen Badger]

A question for you Lek.

Suppose you have trapped your leg in a machine at work.

Now I see that you're caught and with the simple flick of a switch I could release you from your suffering.

But instead I say that the pain and subsequent loss of your leg will make you a better person.

And you might even end up as a world champion in the disabled Olympics.

What would you think of me?

[robvalue]

If "morality" means anything other than maximising the wellbeing of living creatures and the environment and minimising the harm, then it's a useless definition. I don't care about what some abstract undemonstrated being's idea of "morality" is. Suffering is bad and I'd rather not suffer. I'd rather not see others suffer. It's really not that complicated. If God knows everything, he knows how much those suffering hate the suffering too. If I know it, he certainly should. If he wants to trump that with his mysterious bullshit definition of morality, he can stick it up his Kaiser Soze. If we're just some sort of cosmic sport to him, he can ram it up his Grand Canyon.

So, theists, please be clear what you mean by morality. Don't try and start a sentence with some abstract God notion of morality and end it making a conclusion about morality that actually matters in the real world.

[dyresand]

Will you go to hell for your atheism...no hell, heaven, purgatory, god, satan, angels, demons, they all don't exist.

[Whateverist]

Well how is anyone going to get into hell if it doesn't even exist? Would it at least be alright if they torture themselves with angst over an imagined everlasting torment with what finite time they have left in their existence? Their choice right? Hell is what you make it.

[dyresand]

Well how is anyone going to get into hell if it doesn't even exist?  Would it at least be alright if they torture themselves with angst over an imagined everlasting torment with what finite time they have left in their existence?  Their choice right?  Hell is what you make it.

Well technically we could call this here hell if our lives are shitty enough it would be hell.   Even still you can make your life better and even still hell isn't even in christianity its something from the Egyptian book of the dead. And even then the bible writers couldn't come up with a good enough story to save their own lives because well its all been picked out of other mythologies and some people do not take the extra time to even look up said other mythologies. Because well... jesus i am outright going to say if he had existed Mary slept with someone one else other than her husband and lied about it. And the other thing is the really brings up the question why is it that jesus is similar to Horus but a more forgiving character.
Because jesus is a ripoff of Horus the end. And if you want to drag muslims and every other Abrahamic belief into it as well there all fucking morons as well. 

[Lek]

A question for you Lek.

Suppose you have trapped your leg in a machine at work.

Now I see that you're caught and with the simple flick of a switch I could release you from your suffering.

But instead I say that the pain and subsequent loss of your leg will make you a better person.

And you might even end up as a world champion in the disabled Olympics.

What would you think of me?

First of all, you seem to be assuming that God wouldn't flick the switch to save your leg. Anyway, what if you tell me I have a destiny to fulfill for the good of mankind, and it can only happen if I lose my leg? But afterwards I will be given a new, perfect body and will live happily for eternity? You know, I've always dreamed of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.