If God sent your child to Hell.

[Anima]

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

Let us go out on a limb and say there is one truth. If that truth is known by more than one it is shared by both (the general argument against the acceptance of facts of science). Now there are those who do not accept the truth no matter what (we call them bigots or religious nuts). So if that person accepts the truth in time, though that truth is not what they want it to be does that sounds like an adjusted lobotomy? No, then might we say the same about the truth of who is to be punished and for what. Otherwise you are saying we should all have our own individual truth and remain forever bigoted to the truth.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]3.  Those in paradise are not suffering, but not everyone is in paradise.  Think of it like morphine.  Those on it are felling fantastic, those not are not feeling as awesome.  Does the one on the morphine suffer because the others are not feeling as fantastic? [...]

Yes. You've obviously never taken drugs. Having people around who are evidently not in the same state of high as you are can really "harsh your buzz". Which is why people tend to take drugs (including alcohol and religion) in groups and tend to alienate/avoid abstinents, while doing it. 

[Anima]

[...]3.  Those in paradise are not suffering, but not everyone is in paradise.  Think of it like morphine.  Those on it are felling fantastic, those not are not feeling as awesome.  Does the one on the morphine suffer because the others are not feeling as fantastic? [...]

Yes. You've obviously never taken drugs. Having people around who are evidently not in the same state of high as you are can really "harsh your buzz". Which is why people tend to take drugs (including alcohol and religion) in groups and tend to alienate/avoid abstinents, while doing it. 

I defer to your expertise on drug usage. Though as I have previously said religion is akin to education or exercise. If not done properly it can be harmful to you. If done right it is good for you overall but is not necessarily pleasing in and of itself. Hardly qualifying as a drug.

However, the argument of people on a drug tending to flock in groups would equally apply to the AthiestForum. Imagine the majority of people here are atheist and even recall an introduction titled a place to belong. Even the ancient philosophers testify how it is natural for like to be attracted to like, being of the same nature, realization, or disposition.

[Losty]

To make this analogous to something we experience let us say that hell = prison. Now why be part of society or government that could send your child to prison for life (or may even kill them)? For that matter why be a part of any society or government that imprisons (or executes) anybody at all (after all everybody is somebody's baby)?

No you dolt. An analogy would be, why be a part of a society that would send anyone to prison for an eternity and torture them when their only crime is refusing to worship the king. And yea, I wouldn't want to be a part of a society like that.

You brought up a good question though. Why believe in a god at all? I see no reason to.

[Anima]

To make this analogous to something we experience let us say that hell = prison. Now why be part of society or government that could send your child to prison for life (or may even kill them)? For that matter why be a part of any society or government that imprisons (or executes) anybody at all (after all everybody is somebody's baby)?

No you dolt. An analogy would be, why be a part of a society that would send anyone to prison for an eternity and torture them when their only crime is refusing to worship the king. And yea, I wouldn't want to be a part of a society like that.

You brought up a good question though. Why believe in a god at all? I see no reason to.

Hmm...

So you are saying that a person who acts in opposition to the law and even seeks to undermine said law under the argument they do not recognize the king (and by extension his authority) was not a crime punishable by imprisonment or death? History and the numerous people who have been executed for not recognizing the king or his authority would disagree.

Furthermore you state that you would not want to be part of a society like that. Too my knowledge there is not a society on earth that does not consider opposition to the rule of law and efforts to undermine said law under the argument of not recognizing the authority of said law as the crime of treason. Punishable by life imprisonment or death.

Even lawless individuals know to not recognize the authority of the leader is to act treasonous, punishable by imprisonment or death.

[Aroura]

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

Let us go out on a limb and say there is one truth.  If that truth is known by more than one it is shared by both (the general argument against the acceptance of facts of science).  Now there are those who do not accept the truth no matter what (we call them bigots or religious nuts).  So if that person accepts the truth in time, though that truth is not what they want it to be does that sounds like an adjusted lobotomy?  No, then might we say the same about the truth of who is to be punished and for what.  Otherwise you are saying we should all have our own individual truth and remain forever bigoted to the truth.

You completely avoided my point about how Jesus did not even approve of the suffering of those who "deserved" it; and generally, the more aware we become of why people behave the way they do and why the world works the way it does the LESS tolerant of others suffering we become.

Why would it make any sense at all that divine 'enlightenment" would cause us to think people DESERVE suffering?  Everything we know about reality point to that actually working the other way.

I know, you can't wrap your head around It because of Hell. This is a great example of how religion harms.  You are clearly a nice, understanding and generally non-judgmental person, and you are looking forward to how god will turn you into a judgmental asshole just like him.

I'm not even sure how to further respond to your line of reasoning, it's so disgusting to me, repulsive.  That you embrace it just baffles me.

[Pyrrho]

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

Let us go out on a limb and say there is one truth.  If that truth is known by more than one it is shared by both (the general argument against the acceptance of facts of science).  Now there are those who do not accept the truth no matter what (we call them bigots or religious nuts).  So if that person accepts the truth in time, though that truth is not what they want it to be does that sounds like an adjusted lobotomy?  No, then might we say the same about the truth of who is to be punished and for what.  Otherwise you are saying we should all have our own individual truth and remain forever bigoted to the truth.

You completely avoided my point about how Jesus did not even approve of the suffering of those who "deserved" it; and generally, the more aware we become of why people behave the way they do and why the world works the way it does the LESS tolerant of others suffering we become.

Why would it make any sense at all that divine 'enlightenment" would cause us to think people DESERVE suffering?  Everything we know about reality point to that actually working the other way.

I know, you can't wrap your head around It because of Hell. This is a great example of how religion harms.  You are clearly a nice, understanding and generally non-judgmental person, and you are looking forward to how god will turn you into a judgmental asshole just like him.

I'm not even sure how to further respond to your line of reasoning, it's so disgusting to me, repulsive.  That you embrace it just baffles me.

It is embraced because of belief.  Take away the ridiculous, unfounded belief, and what repulses you would disappear.

Religion warps thinking and it warps morality.  Take away the religion, and thinking and morality tend to straighten out.  Of course, sometimes, what has been too badly warped will never be straight again, but getting rid of the cause of the warping is the first step to making things right.

[JuliaL]

---

So, greater metaphysical understanding is going to tell you why we're going to burn in hell?  So, you have no qualms telling a moral atheist that they deserve to burn in hell, you're just not sure why yet?

It is likely that a person already knows why.  Though such may not be the case as people are as adept at self deception as they are at deceiving others.

---

The bigger question would why worship a god if you know your child may go to hell.

By extension, an even bigger argument would be why worship a god that sends anyone to hell.  Since, as the song goes, "Everybody is somebody's baby".

But then if we say god will send no one to hell (as they are all the son or daughter of someone) we would have to say why believe in a god.  (I suspect the original intention of the question).

To make this analogous to something we experience let us say that hell = prison.  Now why be part of society or government that could send your child to prison for life (or may even kill them)?  For that matter why be a part of any society or government that imprisons (or executes) anybody at all (after all everybody is somebody's baby)?

I suspect your answer will be similar to my own.  That while it may not necessarily be what you desire you will understand why they are in prison based on the conduct they engaged in and the harm they committed.  With your understanding will come acceptance or determination that your loved one (while still loved) belongs there.

---

It seems a common scenario in the history of religion where the complications of simplistic overstatement lead, on further reflection when internal contradictions are discovered, to ad-hoc explanations which generally do not serve to resolve the conflict.

God is omnipotent. -> Can he make a rock so big He can't lift it? -> Sure, how is a mystery.
God is omniscient. -> Does He know of the extent of his knowledge of the things he doesn't know?-> Sure, how is a mystery.
Paradise is perfect. -> Perfect peace includes knowledge of the suffering of others. -> You will understand. It's a mystery.
God is omnibenevolent -> Wherefore evil? -> You will understand.  It's a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why people choose the complex explanation: God and mystery instead of the simple one: No God and the obvious.

I am a fan of these ones:
1.  He does not make the rock and lift it in the same form.  God may be limited by form and volition (see Aristotle essence, accident, and realization)

---

2.  He knows that he knows everything.

---

3.  Those in paradise are not suffering, but not everyone is in paradise.  Think of it like morphine.  Those on it are felling fantastic, those not are not feeling as awesome.  Does the one on the morphine suffer because the others are not feeling as fantastic?

It is a mystery why people chose to complex an explanation more than they necessary to the point that their convolution ends up excluding their own logic.

---

I assume your inclusion of the grinning emoticon is an ironic admission that you are doing exactly what I was describing.  That is, providing an appealing, simple but inadequate rebuttal to the logical contradiction inherent in the appealing, simple but logically impossible description of the deity.


unknown unknowns and omniscience

Bear in mind the example I gave in the original video. The cartesian-demon like example of God's God.  The idea that one such unknown unknown could be that God himself is a created agent, made by an even higher level entity in such a way that God's God never 'reveals' Himself to God; leaves no clues; fashions God's realm and his psyche such that He earnestly believes Himself to be the ultimate source. However, God is labouring under an illusion - an illusion from which there is no escape and no way of detecting or falsifying. At least, no way unless God's God decides to make things otherwise.

BTW, God's God is named Larry.

[Anima]

You completely avoided my point about how Jesus did not even approve of the suffering of those who "deserved" it; and generally, the more aware we become of why people behave the way they do and why the world works the way it does the LESS tolerant of others suffering we become.

Why would it make any sense at all that divine 'enlightenment" would cause us to think people DESERVE suffering?  Everything we know about reality point to that actually working the other way.

I know, you can't wrap your head around It because of Hell. This is a great example of how religion harms.  You are clearly a nice, understanding and generally non-judgmental person, and you are looking forward to how god will turn you into a judgmental asshole just like him.

I'm not even sure how to further respond to your line of reasoning, it's so disgusting to me, repulsive.  That you embrace it just baffles me.

Jesus did not approve of the suffering of those who deserved it? I have to assume you are talking about the parts where the sinner in question repents or is forgiven. I am sure if you look you will find sufficient references where Jesus stipulates those who choose to engage in wrongful conduct and do not repent shall receive what they deserve (which naturally is going to be awesomeness!!)

I am having a hard time understand the animosity. I endeavored to answer this question in reasonable terms and even made the equation of hell to prison to try to avoid unwarranted hatred against religious comments. The question asked was if God sent your child to hell (which I equated to the state putting your child in prison or executing them). In either question the child chose to engage in action of sufficient wrongness or illegality as to warrant their condemnation or execution.

Am i supposed to say I refuse to believe in a god who allows one person in hell, no matter how horrible their chosen conduct? That I will not live in a state that puts a single person in prison, no matter how many laws they break or people they hurt? That I should suffer guilt for the punishment of one who chose to engage in vicious and illicit conduct of a nature so bad as to be imprisoned or executed?

I do not think any reasonable person, theist or atheist, would agree with that. And if they do they have my utmost sympathies to be constantly wracked with guilt and bad feelings about the bad things that other people do (that is beyond your control) must be a never ending torment. To quote Brian Griffin:

"Stewie, it's not your fault....Stewie; it's not your fault....NO! Stewie... It's not your fault."

[robvalue]

Prison is mainly used as a way of keeping people away from society who are a danger to it.

"Hell" is something that happens to you after you die supposedly. No one needs protecting from you anymore, you dead son. So in this analogy, it would be like re animating the corpse and making it live forever in a prison as vengeance. A prison made just for this purpose. Optionally torturing it as well, depending on which version people believe in.

So it's really not a very good comparison. Prison isn't primarily concerned with seeking vengeance. If a murderer dies before being convicted, we don't stomp on his corpse for all eternity as payback.