Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[The Grand Nudger]

The subject of eternal torture, and you're insisting that there's no ethical component, lol?  Talk about moral bankruptcy.  Is that a requirement of your faith, or just a personal hobby?  

Let's run with it, though. You say there's no ethical component..so there's no need for you to bullshit us or yourself about anyone being tortured on the basis of their having done Bad Things™.  It's just reality.  God's just a torturer, that's just what he does.

Seems like a choice between moral bankruptcy and stepping on your own dick. I suppose it could be both, too. Pass.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't see why a 'savior' is required.

See, CL, this is what an 'honest mistake" looks like. He isn't rejecting any specific doctrine or belief system. He will not recognize the need for redemption in himself, thus he rejects, out of hand, any offer of salvation made known to him even in the abstract. Now I put it to you, CL, on what basis does such an individual claim to be good? Compared to what?

[SteveII]

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.

All depends on perspective and understanding the concepts behind the doctrine. I think many people need the short version to remain horrified and disgusted. If they had to articulate the whole doctrine, Jesus sounds more like good news. 

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.

I can articulate any one of the basics in a paragraph or two so practically anyone could understand--so Christian basics are not "insanely complicated". If you are talking about secondary doctrines and differences between churches, etc., you need a firm grasp on the basics before you can even begin to understand the nuances and principles in play. My point was not that the mountains of works on Christian thought have to be considered to understand it--rather that there are not any real objections that haven't been thoroughly addressed somewhere.

[LadyForCamus]

So, then why would a so-called ‘just’ god, give an overwhelming advantage to a only fragment of the total population?  I mean, not everyone on the planet has equal opportunity and resources to glean an education on world religion.  So, we’re all judged equally, but some of us have the odds impossibly stacked against us, while others of us are just...lucky?  Pretty unjust, and rather silly, I think.

Did God "give" an overwhelming advantage or is it simply that part of the world has an overwhelming advantage because of the accumulation of trillions of free will decisions man has made over the millenniums? For your point to be valid, you need God to have some control of most or all of people's actions. 

Since I believe God judges you on the basis of your responses to the truths revealed to you (as we have been discussing for many posts), it is about as fair as a world can be that consists of people that have free.

Hmm.  ‘Free’ to inevitably suffer the consequences of choices made by people perhaps thousands of years ago, and perhaps thousands of miles away?  That’s not free or just.

[polymath257]

I don't see why a 'savior' is required.

See, CL, this is what an 'honest mistake" looks like. He isn't rejecting any specific doctrine or belief system. He will not recognize the need for redemption in himself, thus he rejects, out of hand, any offer of salvation made known to him even in the abstract. Now I put it to you, CL, on what basis does such an individual claim to be good? Compared to what?

Goodness is determined by interactions with other intelligent moral agents. It is a social construct.

[SteveII]

Did God "give" an overwhelming advantage or is it simply that part of the world has an overwhelming advantage because of the accumulation of trillions of free will decisions man has made over the millenniums? For your point to be valid, you need God to have some control of most or all of people's actions. 

Since I believe God judges you on the basis of your responses to the truths revealed to you (as we have been discussing for many posts), it is about as fair as a world can be that consists of people that have free.

Hmm.  ‘Free’ to inevitably suffer the consequences of choices made by people perhaps thousands of years ago, and perhaps thousands of miles away?  That’s not free or just.

It is the very definition of 'free'. As far as just, the principle does not in any way apply to the circumstances we find ourselves. Actions and intentions can be just, circumstance just are.

[LadyForCamus]

Did god “give”—

And, more to your point; yes he did give an advantage when he consciously decided to make the world exactly as it is, knowing how things would shake out. Your ad-hoc rationalizations to the effect of, ‘god couldn’t have done better, and couldn’t do anything differently,’ are exactly that: Rationalizations, in the face of an obviously unjust system created by a supposed ‘perfectly just’ entity.

Out one side of your mouth you claim god’s glory is incomprehensible to the human mind; how dare we question something we can’t fully understand in this life?  But, out of the other side, you claim to know every motive, every detail of his divine attributes, what type of creation would be the best to god, and the ceiling of his capabilities.  Conveniently for theists, either philosophy can be employed to effectively wiggle out of inconsistencies and moral objections, depending on which one we happen to be discussing at the moment.  Look how that works out!

Why do you suspect god created people in the first place? Out of loneliness?

[vulcanlogician]

I don't see why a 'savior' is required.

See, CL, this is what an 'honest mistake" looks like. He isn't rejecting any specific doctrine or belief system. He will not recognize the need for redemption in himself, thus he rejects, out of hand, any offer of salvation made known to him even in the abstract. Now I put it to you, CL, on what basis does such an individual claim to be good? Compared to what?

Something tells me you don't seek redemption from Vishnu for all the cow meat you've eaten. Same principle with Polymath and the tribal god of the Israelites.

[SteveII]

Did god “give”—

And, more to your point; yes he did give an advantage when he consciously decided to make the world exactly as it is, knowing how things would shake out. Your ad-hoc rationalizations to the effect of, ‘god couldn’t have done better, and couldn’t do anything differently,’ are exactly that: Rationalizations, in the face of an obviously unjust system created by a supposed ‘perfectly just’ entity.

No, I am sure the are near infinite worlds he could have created. You would have to show that the world that he did choose to create was not the one with the most overall good given that humans have free will. No rationalization needed. No counter argument will hold up. 

Out one side of your mouth you claim god’s glory is incomprehensible to the human mind; how dare we question something we can’t fully understand in this life?  But, out of the other side, you claim to know every motive, every detail of his divine attributes, what type of creation would be the best to god, and the ceiling of his capabilities.  Conveniently for theists, either philosophy can be employed to effectively wiggle out of inconsistencies and moral objections, depending on which one we happen to be discussing at the moment.  Look how that works out!

I didn't make any such statements about God being incomprehensible in this thread (or in any other I can remember) so any claims of inconsistency are imagined. The fact that you are literally complaining that I have a well-formed arguments with philosophical underpinnings is amusing.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why a 'savior' is required.

See, CL, this is what an 'honest mistake" looks like. He isn't rejecting any specific doctrine or belief system. He will not recognize the need for redemption in himself, thus he rejects, out of hand, any offer of salvation made known to him even in the abstract. Now I put it to you, CL, on what basis does such an individual claim to be good? Compared to what?

Does feeling remorse for wrongdoings, acknowledging that you are not perfect, and wanting to be better, in and of itself, count as some sort of recognition of the need for redemption? I mean, even if the person is atheist and in discussion they say "I don't need a savior...", this doesn't necessarily mean they see themselves as perfect beings who don't see a constant need for improvement in themselves.

...I dunno... I'm just trying to say that it could be possible and may not be so black and white.

---

.
Neo, what I always think of is when Jesus was hanging on the cross, He said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." ... And He was saying this about people who spit on Him, beat Him to a pulp, and nailed Him to a cross to die in agony. What worse offense is there than that? I'm not saying Jesus' killers went to Heaven, I'm sure that depends on a lot more. But my point is His great mercy was shown here when He pointed out that those people weren't aware of or understand what exactly they were doing, and for that, He showed them mercy.

(And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not comparing atheists to killers lol. That wasnt my point)