Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Your god offers us an ultimatum. I don't see that as encouraging, especially when the ultimatum is hell if we don't love him or accept his terms. That's narcissistic and pathological thinking by a crazed individual. 

Personally, I was broken for years while being a Christian. Not once did your god ever lift me up during my time of acceptance, even when I did put all my problems in "His hands". Any betterment to any situation I was going through, happened only as a direct result of actual live people helping or me working hard to improve my situation. No god needed. Therefore, he isn't needed to make me "whole". 

Besides - no one has the right to call me broken but myself. I don't need the opinions of some god, translated by a mere mortal, when that god can't even confront me face to face on his own. He's a puny god if he exists, simply because he needs humans to do his bidding. 

And please don't tell me that I was "doing it wrong" or that I wasn't a True Christian™. That's another favorite go-to for theists. They like to further blame non-believers for believing wrong. A child who gets beaten on a daily basis, reaches out and prays to god for the beating to stop. The abuse doesn't stop. Your god fails to intervene. How exactly is that the fault of the child? Oh I know! He/she prayed wrong or didn't love god or believe enough in the "right" way. This is the type of garbage that your religion has brainwashed you to believe. Your god failed to deliver an innocent child to the safety of others, yet somehow it's the child's fault. And not a single believer thinks that anything is wrong with sending this sort of message to children.

The earth is filled with starving kids, kids who didn't ask to be born, let alone be faced with bloated bellies and daily pain from hunger, while being feasted on by flies because they smell like death. Your god could feed them, if he wanted to. He could turn deserts into lush, green, fertile land, so that it could be farmed and feed thousands. 

But if he's real, he's narcissistic because he'd rather accept people who bow down and worship him out of some blind devotion, instead of absolving this place from hunger or disease or disaster. If he's real, he's a prideful god because it's all about him. Fuck the future generations of "his children". Let's punish them for no good reason. Let's brainwash and indoctrinate children into believing they were born with sin. 

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather continue to use logic and reason, knowing that science trumps your god every time. When he can re-grow a limb without science getting involved, give me a call.

But ... but ... God loves you, Joods. You're such a meanie.

[Joods]

Your god offers us an ultimatum. I don't see that as encouraging, especially when the ultimatum is hell if we don't love him or accept his terms. That's narcissistic and pathological thinking by a crazed individual. 

Personally, I was broken for years while being a Christian. Not once did your god ever lift me up during my time of acceptance, even when I did put all my problems in "His hands". Any betterment to any situation I was going through, happened only as a direct result of actual live people helping or me working hard to improve my situation. No god needed. Therefore, he isn't needed to make me "whole". 

Besides - no one has the right to call me broken but myself. I don't need the opinions of some god, translated by a mere mortal, when that god can't even confront me face to face on his own. He's a puny god if he exists, simply because he needs humans to do his bidding. 

And please don't tell me that I was "doing it wrong" or that I wasn't a True Christian™. That's another favorite go-to for theists. They like to further blame non-believers for believing wrong. A child who gets beaten on a daily basis, reaches out and prays to god for the beating to stop. The abuse doesn't stop. Your god fails to intervene. How exactly is that the fault of the child? Oh I know! He/she prayed wrong or didn't love god or believe enough in the "right" way. This is the type of garbage that your religion has brainwashed you to believe. Your god failed to deliver an innocent child to the safety of others, yet somehow it's the child's fault. And not a single believer thinks that anything is wrong with sending this sort of message to children.

The earth is filled with starving kids, kids who didn't ask to be born, let alone be faced with bloated bellies and daily pain from hunger, while being feasted on by flies because they smell like death. Your god could feed them, if he wanted to. He could turn deserts into lush, green, fertile land, so that it could be farmed and feed thousands. 

But if he's real, he's narcissistic because he'd rather accept people who bow down and worship him out of some blind devotion, instead of absolving this place from hunger or disease or disaster. If he's real, he's a prideful god because it's all about him. Fuck the future generations of "his children". Let's punish them for no good reason. Let's brainwash and indoctrinate children into believing they were born with sin. 

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather continue to use logic and reason, knowing that science trumps your god every time. When he can re-grow a limb without science getting involved, give me a call.

But ... but ... God loves you, Joods. You're such a meanie.

God can fuck off.

[emjay]

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?

Once the need is recognized, sure, that would be a step in the right direction. A person still needs to look outside themselves for both salvation and forgiveness. As the Schoolmen said, "you cannot give what you do not have." That is why atheists cannot go to Heaven.  They have arrogated unto themselves a power they do not have - the ability to absolve sin.

If I've hurt someone, and, through conscience, reflection, and empathy, recognise and feel remorse for it, then the person I want to make amends with... make it up to and make it right with... is the person I've actually hurt. If I steal from you, it is you that is affected and hurt by that action... you that suffers as a result of it... and you whose suffering I wish I had not caused and want to undo/reduce/compensate for as much as possible. Getting forgiveness/absolution from you is secondary to the goal of alleviating your suffering; if forgiving me helps you to heal, then great, but if for whatever reason you'd deal better by not forgiving, then that's the price I have to pay and part of my compensation to you. So I do look outside myself... but it is towards the person I've actually hurt... the person most affected by my actions... the person whose suffering I want to remove and regret causing in the first place.

Serious question; as a Christian, if you feel you've wronged someone, who's your first port of call when you're seeking to make amends... and likewise who do you feel most sorry to? God, or the person you've actually hurt? And what is the primary aim? Receiving forgiveness for yourself, or making amends for your actions...ie reducing the affected being's suffering as much as possible, even if it causes you hurt? If the answer is God, then frankly that makes no sense to me; though it may be one of God's commandments, if I steal from you it is you that is most directly affected by that action, even if god exists... you that suffers as a result of it and you that would not have suffered in the absence of it. Ie without suffering of some kind, by man or god, it seems there could be no 'sin' beyond the completely arbitrary, so if you want to make the case that God is more deserving of your focus when making amends than the person directly affected by the action, it seems to me you need to explain why God suffers more as a result of it than the person directly affected... eg why me stealing from you causes him more suffering than it causes you, and that's not even to address whether an omni-everything being, who makes all the rules, can suffer in the first place.

[SteveII]

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.

Well, no.  I’m not going to just give free will to the argument. That’s my whole point.  But you’re right; there are a near infinite number of worlds he could have created.  The onus is on you to demonstrate your premise that a world with free will, that inevitably results in billions of souls suffering in eternal spiritual agony, is better than any other alternative, including worlds without free will.  So far, the strongest you’ve offered is that, “it seems” to be that way.  Better for who?  And why? 

Free will is absolutely central to almost all Christian doctrine. You don't get to withhold it in a discussion about Christian doctrine. It is a given.

No, the onus is not on me to prove that given free will, this is the best possible world because proof is literally impossible to have. All I need to say is that, given the character and attributes of God, it is reasonable to assume that, given free will, this is the best possible world. Offer defeaters if you think the premise is wrong.  

But, coming back to reality, of course you have no possible way of demonstrating such a premise without first demonstrating that the proposed creator exists in the first place. Otherwise, all of this is nothing more than a philosophical “Choose Your Own Adventure”.

Do you really think this is a point that needs to be made in a discussion about a very specific Christian doctrine? It is actually a discussion stopping device usually pulled out when all the objections have been knocked down.

[GrandizerII]

Free will is absolutely central to almost all Christian doctrine. You don't get to withhold it in a discussion about Christian doctrine. It is a given.

No, the onus is not on me to prove that given free will, this is the best possible world because proof is literally impossible to have. All I need to say is that, given the character and attributes of God, it is reasonable to assume that, given free will, this is the best possible world. Offer defeaters if you think the premise is wrong.

You don't have much faith in your God's ability to come up with a much better world than this, one with far less suffering? Even granting free will, God could still intervene in people's affairs to protect would-be victims from serious harm such as rape and molestation and torture, provide men/women with curatives for cancer and other fatal illnesses and diseases, rain down food and water for people most in need of such resources, and stop massive natural disasters from wreaking havoc on this world and causing severe damages to both people and property. He intervened in people's affairs quite a lot in the Old Testament, he sure as hell can do it anytime, especially today. It didn't stop him before.

[SteveII]

Free will is absolutely central to almost all Christian doctrine. You don't get to withhold it in a discussion about Christian doctrine. It is a given.

No, the onus is not on me to prove that given free will, this is the best possible world because proof is literally impossible to have. All I need to say is that, given the character and attributes of God, it is reasonable to assume that, given free will, this is the best possible world. Offer defeaters if you think the premise is wrong.

You don't have much faith in your God's ability to come up with a much better world than this, one with far less suffering? Even granting free will, God could still intervene in people's affairs to protect would-be victims from serious harm such as rape and molestation and torture, provide men/women with curatives for cancer and other fatal illnesses and diseases, rain down food and water for people most in need of such resources, and stop massive natural disasters from wreaking havoc on this world and causing severe damages to both people and property. He intervened in people's affairs quite a lot in the Old Testament, he sure as hell can do it anytime, especially today. It didn't stop him before.

You are describing something other than free will if God stops you from doing something that would cause harm. This is the old PoE argument. It has been thoroughly addressed by philosophers but still lingers because there is an emotional (not a logical) objection. Start another thread if you want to discuss.

[The Grand Nudger]

You aren't interferring with anyone's "free will" by refusing to allow them to do what they "freely willed" to do.  You're interfering with the effects that "free will" might have on others..this is what police hope to achieve for a living. God is the kind of cop that watches a rape in progress. Every rape in progress, in fact. That would get a person fired and thrown in jail.....but for some odd reason, it makes you worship him.

For example..you just "freely willed" to evade the discussion and "freely willed" to try and drive it out of thread. I just said "nyet, staying right here, where it belongs". I didn;t interfere with your "free will", I just prevented you from succeeding at being the weasel you wanted to be. This is, apparently, beyond a god's abilities or inclinations.

So, my question..which is the same question as Grands... is this, why do believers insist that their god be such an abject failure?

[Catholic_Lady]

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?

Once the need is recognized, sure, that would be a step in the right direction. A person still needs to look outside themselves for both salvation and forgiveness. As the Schoolmen said, "you cannot give what you do not have." That is why atheists cannot go to Heaven. They have arrogated unto themselves a power they do not have - the ability to absolve sin.

But doesn't Jesus forgive so long as there is real remorse? As another example, the man dying on the cross next to Jesus. He didn't ask Jesus for forgiveness. He didn't even say he believed Jesus was God... He simply said Jesus was an innocent man who didn't deserve the death sentence. And he expressed that he himself had done many things wrong and did deserve death. The man expressed remorse for his wrong doings, and Jesus said to him immediately "You will be in paradise."

Sorry if I'm being annoying here. I'm not trying to argue. I just feel like in asking you these questions I also learn.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and we wonder why the world is so shitty when it's full of people who think that death is a matter of deserving it?

In the real world, death isn;t an issue of deserving anything. It;s what happens to living things through damage and decay. Even in chistian theology, no one ever "deserves" anything more than death..no matter how good or remorseful they may be...not even for having accepted christ. It's through grace that anyone is saved, still a sinner.... still broken, not through desert. There's no earning one's way to heaven, the escape from death. We're not capable...and ironically this is true both in the christian doctrine and in reality. A rare moment of congruence.

[Catholic_Lady]

And to clarify for emjay, if our sin involves hurting another, of course we need to ask forgiveness from that person.

Being forgiven by God requires real remorse, and that that involves making things right with the person you hurt, if possible.