Hell isn't scary

[KevinM1]

Huggy, the point is that your analogy was wrong for the reasons I pointed out. 'Dangerous animal outside your door' isn't analogous to unbelief in god. 'Dragon outside your door' is.

Put another way, I'm far more likely to believe you regarding things I know exist (such as mundane dangerous animals, doors, etc.) than things that I don't have any evidence of at all.

This isn't a difficult distinction. The more fantastical someone's claims are, the less likely I am going to believe them.

[ignoramus]

Before we came around, the world and all life on it lived by one law. The law of the jungle.
That's just evolution and nature at work.

Heaven and hell are an important part of the bible as it gives hope to all the good people wronged in this life.
Karma will come around to those evil people in the end!

Wrong!
The crooks of this world run the fucking world!
And the biggest corporate crooks Iive in the Vatican.

That's exactly why they wrote the bible the way they did.
If the poor suffering people in this world rebelled who can stop 7 billion people today?
No one.

But this life's not important is it? Because you suckers, I mean, you wonderful poor followers of God, will live forever in the kingdom of God, right? Pfffft!

Way to go big business! You've got 'em all by the short and curlies!

[Angrboda]

No, I said god invented sin.  Unbelief is an example of sin, but isn't the entirety of sin, correct?  Sin would also include violating the commandments, and other things, such as premarital sex, engaging in homosexuality, etc.

Wrong, Unbelief IS sin, the acts that you mentioned are ATTRIBUTES of sin, in other words, by committing those acts, it shows that you don't believe.

For example, say there is a door, and I tell you not to open it because there is a dangerous animal on the other side. If you proceed to open it anyway, you obviously didn't believe me. Therefore it was your unbelief that caused you to commit the act of opening the door.

Bullshit. The cause of you opening the door was your desire to open the door. If you didn't desire to open the door, you wouldn't open it, animal or no. You're just making up clever word play to cover an empty theological concept.

[Cyberman]

Actually, it's far simpler than that. Huggy warns not to open the door because of the dangerous animal behind it. Thus if I open the door, I risk being mauled and/or eaten, and it would be my fault for not believing his word. However, I wouldn't have to open the door at all in order to assess his claim of a dangerous animal. I could simply ask what he knows about its existence and how he knows it, try to glean whatever information he has access to - growls or roars he may have heard, for instance - and judge its credibility. After all, if this animal isn't apparent until the door is opened, he can't know whether it's actually there either.

[ignoramus]

Maybe huggy bear is a disciple of Schroedinger?

[Huggy Bear]

Wrong, Unbelief IS sin, the acts that you mentioned are ATTRIBUTES of sin, in other words, by committing those acts, it shows that you don't believe.

For example, say there is a door, and I tell you not to open it because there is a dangerous animal on the other side. If you proceed to open it anyway, you obviously didn't believe me. Therefore it was your unbelief that caused you to commit the act of opening the door.

Bullshit.  The cause of you opening the door was your desire to open the door.  If you didn't desire to open the door, you wouldn't open it, animal or no.  You're just making up clever word play to cover an empty theological concept.

Assuming I'm speaking to a sane person, why would you desire to open the door and be mauled after you were just told what was on the other side?


The thing with you atheists is that you want to turn every debate into an atheist vs theist type of situation, your arguments are more based in emotion instead of logic, as Depicted in some other scenario which kinda proves that point.

My scenario has nothing to do with theology, just common sense.

[KevinM1]

Common sense says I shoot the dangerous animal. Just sayin'.

[Crossless2.0]

Common sense says I shoot the dangerous animal.  Just sayin'.

. . . or the asshole who's trying to scare you with an imaginary dangerous animal.

[Angrboda]

Bullshit.  The cause of you opening the door was your desire to open the door.  If you didn't desire to open the door, you wouldn't open it, animal or no.  You're just making up clever word play to cover an empty theological concept.

Assuming I'm speaking to a sane person, why would you desire to open the door and be mauled after you were just told what was on the other side?


The thing with you atheists is that you want to turn every debate into an atheist vs theist type of situation, your arguments are more based in emotion instead of logic, as Depicted in some other scenario which kinda proves that point.

My scenario has nothing to do with theology, just common sense.

[KevinM1]

Common sense says I shoot the dangerous animal.  Just sayin'.

. . . or the asshole who's trying to scare you with an imaginary dangerous animal.

Haha

Of course, Huggy's poor analogy doesn't really address my earlier stance.

God, according to myth, creating everything.  Including sin.  Now, I've never heard anyone except Huggy claim that there's only one sin (I mean, the seven deadly ones are right there), but that's beside the point.  The point is that if sin is actually that offensive to god, then maybe he shouldn't have created it, or, really, anything to begin with.  Non-creation is a hell (see what I did there?) of a lot more moral than creating billions destined for torture.  There's literally no harm being done with no creation.

And if god had an urge so overwhelming to create that he couldn't fight it (which would raise many more questions), then surely he could create people in heaven directly.  Or a more secure environment than the Garden of Eden, at any rate.

Theists always look at it from the wrong angle.  "God wants us to have free will!"  Okay, fine.  But that doesn't mean that god can't create an environment of only good options for people to choose from.  The idea that it's not allowed merely highlights their lack of imagination and their own dogmatic limits they place on their purported almighty.  If I can envision several different forms of reality that wouldn't wind up with billions tortured for eternity, then their god aught to have no problem with it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this here, this one thing, is why I'm not a believer.  I'm merely pointing out the flaws in this aspect of the setup.  And subtly mocking it.  Because it's a really shitty system.