Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[KevinM1]

It matters because you're attempting to state that a finite mortal existence is somehow better than nonexistence for those who will suffer an eternity of torture once their mortal existence is over.  It's ridiculous in a logical sense, given that since something that doesn't exist cannot feel pain, and an eternity of non-awareness is better than an eternity - mortal lifetime of pain.

First, why would we look at it on a person-by-person basis? There are billions upon billions of people who have had, on average, good lives and will would participate in heaven--so there is certainly an argument to be made the there is an aggregate greater good than bad to our existence. 

Second, for your objection to be carry any weight, you would have to ignore the fact that the people bound for hell didn't have any say in it.  

Third, I could argue that even the chance of eternal bliss outweighs the chance of eternal hell (especially factoring you that the result has to do with your choices) in the question of whether it is better to have existed or not.

A greater amount of good to bad in a finite amount of time doesn't mean anything in the face of eternal pain.  Remember: according to your own doctrine, it's not enough that people have led good lives, but that they accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  According to simple math, the vast majority of people through the history of humanity have not believed in him in that capacity.  So, billions upon billions more people have been (and will go) to hell than those that haven't/won't.

For number two and three, I'd argue that people don't have enough information to make an informed decision in the matter.  There's no conclusive proof that any of this is real.  Basing salvation/punishment on faith is utterly illogical, and evidence of bad design.  For something this important, I'd expect the creator of the universe to do more than rely on Middle Eastern myths as the only source of information.  Especially since everyone's starting point is different (someone born in Iran is incredibly likely to have a different opinion regarding Jesus than someone born in Kentucky).

Pain is pain.  Emotional pain can be just as crippling as physical pain.  Moreover, I don't see how the distinction even matters.  We're talking about a state (physical, mental, spiritual - doesn't matter) in which the individual is being tortured (or, perhaps more accurately, in such pain that it may as well be torture, even if it's not administered by an external force).  Is that the ethical treatment of a prisoner?

It is easy to think the doctrine of Hell is like one of the many caricatures one sees of hell over a lifetime. Again, it is not like this cannot be avoided by one's own actions. It is a logical consequence, not a selected punishment from a list of possibilities. Other than no escape, it has nothing in common with a prison and "prisoner" is not the right word.

"Other than it being mostly like a prison, it's not at all like a prison."

Really?  

Also, you keep saying "logical consequence" as though it's somehow different than "sentence."  It's not.  "If you don't choose Christ, you go to hell" isn't substantially different than "If you commit a crime, you go to prison."  And there's no greater crime against god than disbelief.

So, for the third time, is the torturous pain experienced in hell the ethical treatment of a prisoner? This is a really simple question, one that shouldn't take this amount of dodging.

---

Not the right word, eh?  "I object your honor!"  On what grounds?  "This is damaging to my case!"  

Look, if you want to believe in a punitive god that files damned souls away then be satisfied with it for what it is.  They're your beliefs, after all, nobody forced you to hold them.  The same can't be said for your headhunting god sending me to the bodyfarm, now can it?

I mean, ideally, we primates treat even those that have committed the most heinous crimes fairly.  Separated from the general population, to be sure, but they receive shelter, food, medical care (physical and mental), safety/security (for themselves and everyone else), even some forms of entertainment (ironically, there's no shortage of bibles in prison).  We even go so far as to protect them from harm, including self harm. Why?  Because justice isn't just about restitution (which hell would make impossible, but whatever) and punishment, but also the treatment of those who must face that justice.

So, when someone says that hell is the end result of a being who's the epitome of righteous, good justice, I laugh.  Because how prisoners are treated is a core component of any justice system.  And I find the heaven/hell system incredibly wanting.

I'm trying to figure out if Steve really is this obtuse, or if he hadn't really thought about it before, and the logical conclusion is making him uncomfortable.

[Catholic_Lady]

Atheists can still do things that are objectively good of course, even if they don't believe that morality is objective.

[Succubus]

Succubus
[quote pid='1695231' dateline='1517357474']
I don't know who CD is but perhaps their motivation was nothing more than good old fashioned altruism.

"The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

No god belief required.

I do believe that is what she meant.
[/quote]

I do believe some clarification is needed.

[Catholic_Lady]

Succubus
[quote pid='1695231' dateline='1517357474']
I don't know who CD is but perhaps their motivation was nothing more than good old fashioned altruism.

"The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others."

No god belief required.

I do believe that is what she meant.

I do believe some clarification is needed.
[/quote]

LFC is correct, you gorgeous creature

[Astreja]

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.  A perfect being should be capable of at least seeing an imperfect being's point of view and able to lead that party closer to an acceptable state.  Your argument just makes your god sound fragile and petty.

I don't know where you got that point, but my God went the extra mile and actually walked in our shoes for 33 years with exact intention (and more) that you asked for.

No, I don't think that actually happened.  Even if it did happen, though, it still doesn't address my major objections to the Christian message and the reasons that I personally cannot accept it.  I'm quite happy to put Matthew 25:35-40 into practice when I can, but I am incapable of generating religious faith and cannot transcend the utter horror and disgust I feel towards the "accept Jesus or go to hell" message.

I've been aware of Christianity for over fifty years.  If anything, it makes even less sense than when I was first exposed to it.

Those "2 millennium [sic]" and "billions of hours of thought" are no help at all, as Christian theology doesn't come even remotely close to lining up with the reality that I'm aware of.  I've probably heard the best apologetic arguments dozens of times in the last decade or so, and from my POV the lot of you are just whistling in a big, noisy graveyard of stillborn ideas and wishful thinking.

Listen, I enjoy having a respectful conversation, so don't take this the wrong way. The points/concerns in your objections prove that you do not fully understand the doctrines that you are objecting to. That is my point. These are not one-liner type beliefs that can be dismissed with a sentence or two. Christianity is one of the most examined bodies of knowledge in the history of the world. There are thorough answers to every objection ever conceived. They might not all be convincing to all people, but they are not going to be dismantled in a sentence or two.

Yes, there are indeed answers.  Too many answers, IMO, and most of them sound like post hoc rationalization to me.  The doctrines that have been built up around Christianity are insanely complicated, and as far as I can tell none of them go beyond philosophical hypotheses or Biblical hermaneutics anyway.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not sure what transcendent good means, tbh. I googled it but didn't really come up with an explanation.

I'm using the word in contrast to immanent. The Good that exists beyond any individual subject or particular circumstances. This, as opposed to what appears to us at some given time and place as good for any one person, group of people, or even all of humanity. The latter is self-referential; the former is not.

[GrandizerII]

I'm not sure what transcendent good means, tbh. I googled it but didn't really come up with an explanation.

I'm using the word in contrast to immanent. The Good that exists beyond any individual subject or particular circumstances. This, as opposed to what appears to us at some given time and place as good for any one person, group of people, or even all of humanity. The latter is self-referential; the former is not.

Let me know when you (or some other theist) can come up with a good logical argument as to why we need a Transcendent good to exist, as opposed to arguing that the absence of it is merely impractical (rather than also illogical).

[Neo-Scholastic]

The doctrines that have been built up around Christianity are insanely complicated...

The basics are so simple that a child can understand them. We have collectively and personally offended the moral order of the universe and are broken. God has given us the opportunity to be made whole again if only we are willing to accept His offer.

Everything else is gravy.

[vulcanlogician]

Atheists can still do things that are objectively good of course, even if they don't believe that morality is objective.

Agreed. Plus that, some atheists do believe that morality is objective-- so you theists don't have a monopoly on that by any stretch. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

Let me know when you (or some other theist) can come up with a good logical argument as to why we need a Transcendent good to exist, as opposed to arguing that the absence of it is merely impractical (rather than also illogical).

Why do you need a logical argument to tell you that what is good depends on your personal assessment?