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

[Surgenator]

It's hard to accept your line of thinking because it isn't true.  I understand your bitterness about being abused as a child--a terrible thing, still some people go through life unable to deal with childhood abuse, while others do much better.  Was it God's fault that you were abused, or the fault of the person or persons who abused you?   If God gave us free will, he's not going to step in control every move we make.  In order to have free will, we must be able to choose good or evil.  How much is our suffering here in the perspective of eternity?  I've been to the edge of suicide twice, but I believe as the apostle Paul believed.

So basically, god prioritizes the free will of abusers to abuse people, over the safety of children. And you're okay with this because...?

Would you also put humans under the same standard, where if they fail to prevent a crime they easily could it's morally good, because they've preserved the free will of criminals? Or is it only god that gets this inexplicable, immoral free pass from you?

The freewill topic is a dodge from what Judi was talking about. Judi was calling bullshit on Lek's earlier claim on "good coming from suffering in people's lives." Freewill has nothing to do with good things coming out of suffering. I'm a little surprise at you Esq. You normally catch these dodges.

[Pizza]

How does Lek know the mind of God? Because he would need to in order to know God's ultimate plan and if that plan leads to a greater good or what a god would do or not do.

[Brakeman]

How does Lek know the mind of God? Because he would need to in order to know God's ultimate plan and if that plan leads to a greater good or what a god would do or not do.

OOOh Mister Kotter! I know that!



He knows the mind of god because his mind created the god he believes in. He just gives his imagined god the name and history of the gods that previous christians have named their imagined gods.

[Esquilax]

So basically, god prioritizes the free will of abusers to abuse people, over the safety of children. And you're okay with this because...?

Would you also put humans under the same standard, where if they fail to prevent a crime they easily could it's morally good, because they've preserved the free will of criminals? Or is it only god that gets this inexplicable, immoral free pass from you?

The freewill topic is a dodge from what Judi was talking about. Judi was calling bullshit on Lek's earlier claim on "good coming from suffering in people's lives." Freewill has nothing to do with good things coming out of suffering.  I'm a little surprise at you Esq. You normally catch these dodges.

You can't stop a theist from dodging, but you can slap down even the things they dodge to. In this case, we might even call this moving the goalposts; Lek makes a claim, Judi shoots it down, and Lek's response is basically "well, what do you want God to do about it? Free will, duh!" Without even acknowledging that it's happened, Lek has accepted Judi's premise and made an excuse about it; evidently his claim that good comes from bad isn't necessary for him to absolve god of all the blame anyway.

[robvalue]

So many times I've said why the free will thing is bull crap. There doesn't need to be hurtful options in order to have free will. We're already very limited, why not limit the shit options and add more great ones? It speaks to a messed up creator, not one wanting only happiness.

And how come the free will of a rapist always takes precedence over the free will of the victim to not get raped? Someone is losing their free will here either way, so why make it the victim?

Probably the victim's fault for picking up sticks last Sunday huh. Or maybe this is all just utter bollocks and theists just want there to be some cosmic justice for the rapist.

I think Lek may be having a bit of a crisis. I reckon one part of his brain is going into overtime, desperately trying to run around patching holes in the explanations, trying to keep alive the possibility that all this mythology is real. The other part of his brain seeks relief from this endless rationalization, half-truth spinning, dodging and diving, wild interpretations and just clinging on to a busted model of reality.

I think Lek may one day find atheism, out of all the theists here he is perhaps the only one with a real chance. But it may take some time yet, the reflexive mental defences are still strong.

If it does happen, I will actually envy that feeling of relief, because I've never gone through it myself and I think it's going to be amazing for him. But you can't rush these things. I think he keeps coming back because that part of his mind screaming for this to stop sees sense and hope in what we are saying.

Well that's enough from armchair psychologist robvalue for today. That's all just my opinion, and no offense is meant. I may well be utterly completely wrong, and if Lek says so I'll happily accept that

[Lek]

You all seem to have no problem of accepting the reality of suffering until you inject God into the situation.  You know that there are disasters, sickness, wars, crime and so on in the world and you just go on dealing with it.  Most of the claims that I have heard in this forum state that the person's life is going pretty well despite all the horrors in the world.  I don't understand why God must remove all these things from the world in order to be loving, and I do see good coming from suffering.  If you give your children everything and shield them from all adversity, all you will end up with is spoiled brats who are unable to fend for themselves.  If we approach suffering rightly, it will make us stronger and better people.  And I never try to make excuses for God.  If he does something a certain way, that's his business.  I just try to live with what I have to face, with his help, knowing my goal.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out...s-stronger

[robvalue]

You take whatever shit he throws at the world, and he has to answer to no one. Fascist dictator. Giving someone, anyone, a free pass is a dangerous thing.

Equating God to a human parent is a hopelessly flawed analogy. Humans have very limited power and knowledge. They work within a framework. God makes the framework.

I'm breeding a new kind of atheist mushroom if anyone is interested, it can tell the time, speak in three languages and reject God claims.

If suffering can make us stronger, God made it that way. He didn't have to. What a sick system. You talk like God has limits.

Pretty sure kids that die from AIDS didn't get stronger huh.

[Esquilax]

You all seem to have no problem of accepting the reality of suffering until you inject God into the situation.  You know that there are disasters, sickness, wars, crime and so on in the world and you just go on dealing with it.  Most of the claims that I have heard in this forum state that the person's life is going pretty well despite all the horrors in the world.  I don't understand why God must remove all these things from the world in order to be loving, and I do see good coming from suffering.  If you give your children everything and shield them from all adversity, all you will end up with is spoiled brats who are unable to fend for themselves.  If we approach suffering rightly, it will make us stronger and better people.  And I never try to make excuses for God.  If he does something a certain way, that's his business.  I just try to live with what I have to face, with his help, knowing my goal.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out...s-stronger

Lek, you can't simply pretend that there isn't suffering in the world that serves absolutely no purpose at all, and yet still happens. What lessons do infants that get killed in natural disasters learn? What strength is my wife's autoimmune disease supposed to confer? It's never going to stop hounding her, there's no way to consistently fight it, what purpose does that needless pain have?

God could remove all of that pain, and yet he doesn't. If I could remove that pain, that would undoubtedly be a morally good act, right? If I could save a baby's life, same deal? And if I had the ability to do both of those, and didn't, that would be an immoral act, right? Can you provide a reason why god should be exempt from those same metrics? Don't cite free will; the genetic disease my wife has has no free will to contravene, nor does the disaster set to take the baby's life. Why is it that god doesn't intervene, and yet you don't consider this immoral?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hell is real. Atheists go to Hell. These spiritual truths were revealed in "Heaven and Hell" by Emanuel Swedenborg.

Really? Then explain this:

Wiki

Swedenborg wrote about Heaven and Hell based on what he said was revelation from God. According to Swedenborg, God is love itself and intends everyone to go to heaven. That was His purpose for creation.Thus, God is never angry, Swedenborg says, and does not cast anyone into Hell.

Read further.

He doesn't cast people into hell they go there on there on their own because they has embraced falsities that prevent them from receiving grace.

[KevinM1]

You all seem to have no problem of accepting the reality of suffering until you inject God into the situation.  You know that there are disasters, sickness, wars, crime and so on in the world and you just go on dealing with it.  Most of the claims that I have heard in this forum state that the person's life is going pretty well despite all the horrors in the world.  I don't understand why God must remove all these things from the world in order to be loving, and I do see good coming from suffering.  If you give your children everything and shield them from all adversity, all you will end up with is spoiled brats who are unable to fend for themselves.  If we approach suffering rightly, it will make us stronger and better people.  And I never try to make excuses for God.  If he does something a certain way, that's his business.  I just try to live with what I have to face, with his help, knowing my goal.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out...s-stronger

1. There's a difference between adversity and suffering.  A kid getting in trouble in school or getting a failing grade is far, far different than, say, getting cancer, or being abused by an authority figure.  I fail to see why suffering is a necessary component.  I fail to see why a god, that's often presented as a loving father figure, would not only allow his children to suffer, but create that which causes them to suffer in the first place.  Because god is the omnipotent, omniscient creator, according to you.  He knows who will suffer.  How they'll suffer.  He has ample opportunity, and I dare say a moral obligation to prevent that suffering, but he apparently chooses not to.  Ask any father who sees their children truly suffering, and most will say that they'd do anything to remove that suffering, to the point of trading places with their child.  And, shit, isn't that the hook of the Jesus story?  Seems like god forgot that lesson rather quickly.

2. What is the end game?  Tests are given to prepare someone for something, yet your purported afterlife is a thing where what's learned in the tests - the character that's supposedly built from enduring them - are useless.  What use is good character, or humility, or anything else in an eternal paradise, where there are no wants or needs?  And for those that didn't come out of the adversity or suffering they endured up to your god's standards, the end result is... more suffering.  That's laughably cruel.

Your god is an incredibly petty character.  Cruel and capricious.  It boggles the mind that anyone would worship such a creature.  Thankfully, he's fictional.