On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

This seems to presuppose that God is not there.  Which again would be a claim which needs to be substantiated.

No it doesn't this bullshit tactic of yours is so transparent it's laughable

[robvalue]

I wouldn’t call a generic belief in a creator a delusion. I’d call it an unfounded belief. 

How about talking to someone who isn't there, asking him to find you a parking spot, and then when you find a parking spot, crediting this supposed being for giving it to you?

Would that qualify as a delusion?

Indeed yes, I covered that in the rest of my post

[RoadRunner79]

See, I actually like spinoza...but I have a novel take.  The man was trolling the religious when trolling the religious was still an offense punishable by summary execution, lol.

In a more academic tone, his place in time necessitated and leads to a stronger connection to the idea of gods and theism than would be warranted or present if he dropped his metaphysics on our heads today.  In sum, he considered nature to be metaphysically ultimate.  That all properties and qualities assigned to a god (and everything else) were, in actuality, properties of nature.  What has all known and possible attributes?  Why..nature does.  If there is only one substance what is that substance?  Nature.  What are all known and possible things a part and piece of?  Nature again.

This didn't escape his contemporaries - they called him an atheist for a reason.

Yes. If there is *any* sort of theism that makes any sense, it is pantheism: identify the universe as God. The problem, as I said, is that this seems to shift the definition of 'God' so much it has little link with the usual concept (however poorly defined it is).

---

This seems to presuppose that God is not there.  Which again would be a claim which needs to be substantiated.

Please prove there are no invisible gnomes and unicorns in my garden that make my garden grow.

Why do you think that there is? If you are claiming, that because we can’t see something, that it does not exist, and hence a person claiming so is delusional, then I don’t think that is a very good argument and one that I can make you contradict fairly quickly; if that is the road you are intending to go down.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you don't actually "see god"?  Your experience is exactly like mine in that regard?  

That would be the only way this new objection could be relevant.

[Amarok]

Why do you think that there is? If you are claiming, that because we can’t see something, that it does not exist, and hence a person claiming so is delusional, then I don’t think that is a very good argument and one that I can make you contradict fairly quickly; if that is the road you are intending to go down.

Utter crap 

Do you every get tired of being dishonest ?

[Aroura]

I would also like to note that I didn't see the derogatory stuff regarding mental illness either I sorry of jumped into the thread at the end, which is a poor way to participate in a conversation, and that's on me. I'll go back and read.

[Whateverist]

My thoughts in simpler terms:

Hell exists because God is not a tyrant who is going to force us to choose Him. He gives us the choice to choose God, or to choose "not God."

Hell is not a dark cave with fire and little demons running around torturing you. It is simply a separation from God.

Since God is Himself pure love, by separating our souls from God in the afterlife, you are separating yourself from beauty, joy, and love. That is why Hell sucks. Not because of torture or punishment.

I think I get what you are saying and this notion of hell is not so hellish.  It is merely making do without the 'best' alternative in ones life.  That assumes there actually is such a thing which is best for all without regard to one's personal preferences, something I doubt.

Of course if one thinks of God as an entirely natural component of consciousness which had nothing to do with creation of the world but rather is a kind of keeper of some wisdom regarding fulfillment for creatures such as ourselves .. then you could see choosing God as choosing completeness.  But then God is about a psychological reality, not a hypothetical post-death existential choice.

[SteveII]

For those claiming that theistic beliefs mean a person is delusional, I assume you realize that 17% of people world wide are non religious. Do you really think 83% of the earth's population have delusional disorder? (plus whatever percentage would come from the non religious group). That is an astounding number of people with a pretty serious mental disorder. Maybe we are wrong for having a religion, and you are right for not. But to claim we are all mentally ill, all 83% of us, is unreasonable and illogical.

I wouldn't claim that religious people are delusional in the same sense that a person with mental illness is delusional, but at the same time religious behavior shares some features with it that merely being mistaken does not.  Of particular note is the absolutism, the supposition that one's belief is knowledge, the fixedness of the beliefs, and the extreme lengths to which religious believers go to defend their beliefs, as well as the tendency to spin ad hoc rationalizations rather than questioning belief.  These are traits that are, at minimum, more emphatic in the religious than in those who are simply mistaken.  So I think there is some merit to analogizing it to delusion, even if it is not one in the same sense.  The reasons for this likely have to do with the neurological support for concepts like God which imbue them with a reality that mere abstract belief does not possess (e.g. the sensus divinitatis).  So religious belief seems to fall in a hinterland between mistaken belief and mental disorder.  And moreover, that aspect of religion tends to be responsible for motivating much of the harm that religious people cause in this world.

Claims of 'delusion' would require overwhelming evidence that the beliefs are false. All atheists have are ad hoc theories to combat the evidence/reasons Christians point to for their belief. Pressing the 'delusion' conclusion shows a complete lack of critical thinking and do no deserve an answer. However your comments are more interesting. 

You are saying something like:

1. There are no good reasons to believe in God
2. Christian belief has a component of neurological support 
3. Christians believe in God despite being shown persuasive arguments to the contrary 
4. Therefore Christians are more than merely mistaken

First, I think (1) is question begging. But I seem to see that in every atheist argument. 

Second, I don't think (1) is true. Even if the belief is false, there are reasons to believe in God (do I need to trot out my long list?). 'Good reasons' is subjective and especially when it comes to the personal reasons people give for their belief, there is no way an atheist can qualify those reasons.  

Third, for (2) Christians would claim this is a component of a cumulative case for belief: this is what we would expect to see if God exists. The defeater for such a thing is going to be something like evolutionary psychology programmed us to believe in causes and when none was apparent: God. Interesting theory that would be stronger if there were not other reasons to believe. With other reasons to believe, it is not at all compelling because it kind of assumes its conclusion. You need it to be compelling to get closer to the 'delusion' spectrum. 

Conviction that your beliefs are true is different than conviction that your beliefs are true and those beliefs entail some motivation/action/bigger picture. Inherent in Christianity is both exclusivity and a motivation/commitment to propagate the belief because the consequences of unbelief are severe. I think it is these (and other) characteristics of Christianity which makes the worldview either all true or all false. There is no middle ground. You interpret this certainty as unjustified (and approaching delusional)--but really it is a feature built into the worldview.

[Amarok]

Hell exists because God is not a tyrant who is going to force us to choose Him. He gives us the choice to choose God, or to choose "not God." 

A god who allows people to suffer that way is a tyrant and a monster 

Hell is not a dark cave with fire and little demons running around torturing you. It is simply a separation from God. 

The fact that a god would allow you to live without love is cruel 

Since God is Himself pure love, by separating our souls from God in the afterlife, you are separating yourself from beauty, joy, and love. That is why Hell sucks. Not because of torture or punishment.

Once again a god who allows himself to be the source of love and makes being with him as condition of love is cruel


Need i point out this is a fucked up view of love .

[LadyForCamus]

---

Steve, it’s not my intention to mischaracterize anything. That’s why I posted this in the Christianity section. I’m not interested in a circle-jerk. I appreciate the correction. You have to understand, I have already gotten two diverging positions from theists in this thread, just on the subject of hell alone, so try to have a little empathy for the non-Christian. 😛


I don’t agree with the concept of humans needing atonement in the first place, but if I’m playing by the rules, so to speak, then I have no problem with the above explanation.


If that’s true, then I guess hell wouldn't really be a punishment, would it?

---

Desiring (and having) a relationship is very satisfying process that provides something tangible that you cannot have on your own. God cannot have the same sort of relationships humans can have with each other so, while the comparison is useful for understanding-

How can it be useful for understanding if it is not accurate?  

our relationships are not a mirror to God's relationship with us.

Then your own analogy is false, and should be tossed out.  You don’t get to call on it at times when the biblical narrative fits that of a loving father-god and his children, but then call it a false analogy when it’s pointed out that god behaves in ways they are not consistent with a loving parent. 

Desiring to be merciful can not in any way 'water down' the justice and holiness characteristics. Rather it generates effects like offering the atonement that would otherwise be impossible.

Again, you seem to be saying that god’s justice places limits on his mercy and forgiveness.  What rationale does god use to prioritize his essential attributes?  

Your objection is that God is not evident enough. But do the facts really support that? If that were the case, then there would be less people believing in God every year--not more. So the real problem is that God is not evident to you in a way you are satisfied with. What is the reason you do not believe the billions of people who believe in God?

It’s not so much an objection as a point. My point is that on the one hand, god’s message in life is absolutely, undeniably crystal clear, and yet on the other hand, there does seem to be some potential other, clearer mechanism he could use to reveal himself to us. My follow up question to this point is, why?  For what reason did god design levels of clarity? Why doesn’t he reveal himself in the clearest way possible to everyone on the planet right now?  What is his rationale?

Because we started our existence here, we developed and because the people we are here, we are uniquely designed for physical/relational/loving/moral/purposeful/hopeful existence here AND most importantly, this is where we sinned and fallen short and therefore need the atonement for those sins for phase 2.  God's forgiveness is actually infinite. I don't think there is anything at all puzzling/inconsistent/illogical about a post-death judgement/account for how you lived you life.

If we are uniquely designed for a physical existence, why is that physical existence finite? What is the reason for first, a finite existence, and then an infinite one? What logical reason is there for the construction of phases of life, and why such a disparity in their lengths? The whole thing reeks of a massive contrivance for the purposes of getting people to behave.

To your second point, God’s forgiveness is obviously finite. Our opportunity for salvation has a clear time limit. Why?

What is the reason for finite opportunity for an infinite soul created by an infinite god?

A point of clarification. God forgiving you is not the same as Jesus atoning for your sins. Anyone can forgive. It is possible for me to forgive a drunk driver who hit me. That does nothing to remove the consequences or penalties of the action. Jesus' atonement wipes the slate clean like it never happened. With that understanding, post-death "forgiveness" would have no effect. Due to God's holiness/justice the consequences are set that you 1) cannot be in the presence of God in an unholy state and 2) that universally, sin demands a payment that you cannot pay.

Why can’t god wipe the slate clean? We are his after all. Isn’t he omnipotent? Why can’t jesus atone me for my sins after I’ve died? What is perfect justice anyway, Steve? What does that even mean? This whole narrative seems nothing more than a long series of non-sequiturs and arbitrary assumptions.