Questions for theists.

[chadster1976]

Some of you need to pop along to a Catholic Church to find out what Catholics REALLY believe, before stating it incorrectly with such certainty. Eternal torment in hell is much the preserve of the evangelists, not the Church of Rome.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Eternal torment in hell is much the preserve of the evangelists, not the Church of Rome.

Oh, I didn't know that. When was that doctrine changed? As it turns out, I was raised devout Catholic and attended Catholic schools from age 5 to 17. The notion of an eternal hell was not only taught but stressed.


You may not be aware just how many recovering Catholics there are on this forum.


An eternal hell has been part of Catholic doctrine for centuries, even though there is no scriptural basis for such a teaching.

[tackattack]

show me in the CCC and we're talking about a place of eternal torment not a place that just is eternal. I looked and I couldn't find it. Maybe you're confusing Hell and Purgatory?

[The Grand Nudger]

Tack, do I seem to be the kind of person who would care if a position was "scripturaly sound"? That people can believe things that go beyond scripture is obvious. Honestly, anyone who refers to scripture is, in my opinion, reaching a conclusion based upon an object that is unsound almost by definition. None of you have anything to offer as to whether or not you are correct in your beliefs about anything in scripture, because none of you can establish scripture as an authority on anything, not even as an authority on christianity. Perhaps, as a non-denominational, you prefer to focus on the similarities and downplay the differences because they create a situation in which you would have to question just how "reasonable" or free of bullshit your own conclusions are in actuality. It's difficult to criticize the beliefs of others when you both claim to derive these beliefs from the same source without poisoning your own well, much better to circle the wagons rgr? Well, when you're all done defeating "the enemies of christ" in the real world and in debate, maybe you'll just go back to slaughtering each other based upon differences that are tiny, or don't really matter.

[tackattack]

No you don't seem like the type who would care if something was scripturaly sound. Nor do you care apparently about people drawing false conclusions about a majority from a minority experienced standard. So what do you care about. Does Hell exist? I don't know, I believe it does, but not from experience. If we're working on the assumption that it does exist, and we'd like to discuss it's attributes if it does exist, then I think we've been over that. Apart from thatI think I've made my points here.

[Popsi]

1) as an atheist, what will happen when I die because I reject faith and superstition, through lack of evidence.

2) what will happen to my children as they haven't been christened, baptised or genitally mutilated?

3) my mum is a dead atheist who was a wonderful moral person, kind and accepting of others beliefs, a socialist and altruist who spent her life helping those with mental difficulties. What would happen to her?

4) because atheists are not gullible enough to believe things without proof and we cannot force ourselves to believe,(I have tried) would god be nice to us because of this?

1 Nothing.
2 Nothing.
3 Nothing.
4 I am sure God would treat you the same as everyone else, and I believe that God would be nice to everyone.

Frankly, I am surprised so many theists think differently.

[ElDinero]

Why are you surprised? And what are your answers based on?

[The Grand Nudger]

If we're working on the assumption that it does exist, and we'd like to discuss it's attributes if it does exist, then I think we've been over that. Apart from thatI think I've made my points here.

Why is it that you would require me to work from that assumption in the first place? Assuming makes an ass of you and me. Is this seriously the only way a conversation can be had about these subjects? "Let's just assume I'm correct about something and then I'll tell you about a related subject that depends on this assumption as though it weren't a litany of platitudes".....? You'd like to discuss those attributes which you believe in (dismissing those attributes which others believe in) without having anything to offer as to why you are the guy with the solid lead on the subject in the first place?

[tackattack]

If we're working on the assumption that it does exist, and we'd like to discuss it's attributes if it does exist, then I think we've been over that. Apart from thatI think I've made my points here.

Why is it that you would require me to work from that assumption in the first place? Assuming makes an ass of you and me. Is this seriously the only way a conversation can be had about these subjects? "Let's just assume I'm correct about something and then I'll tell you about a related subject that depends on this assumption as though it weren't a litany of platitudes".....? You'd like to discuss those attributes which you believe in (dismissing those attributes which others believe in) without having anything to offer as to why you are the guy with the solid lead on the subject in the first place?

Why? Because it was implied in the OP. Without discussing within the confines of the OP's implications I'm not asking you to assume I'm right, I'm just preventing this from degenerating into a fruitles debate where
Ao what is this?
T:I believe this is this because this this and this.
A:That's worthless because you still haven't proven this exists! Ha atheists +1

That happens so often. If the question was genuine, I went with it's assumptions because that's the honest response. I'm more than willing to discuss other viewpoints about Hell and the afterlife. That again though presumes, for the sake of the discussion, that it won't degenerate into someone inevitably popping up with.. and now prove Hell is a real place.

[The Grand Nudger]

My bad, I read 'questions for theists" as the thread title and then automatically assumed that I might be able to ask a theist a question.....You don't get to decide whether or not a question is genuine Tack.

I ask a believer why they have a belief in any part of their faith. Usually I get the answer "it's in the book". Well, there's a lot of shit in that book, it's a big book. Sometimes people see two entirely different things when reading it's passages. It's accuracy regarding events and subjects which have been shown to exist is extremely poor to non-existent to intentionally deceitful. It's never been shown to have been penned by or inspired by any god, and no god has ever been shown to exist. So, it's not an incredibly satisfying answer. If that's all you have then so be it, no need to reply.

The litany of "genuine" questions I have about hell.

-Does hell exist? I'm not asking you if you believe that it does. I believe that you believe.

-What reasons do you have for whatever answer you give?

-Do you feel that these reasons, whatever they are, are good reasons, and could you elaborate upon them?

Maybe you don't want to handle whether or not these claims that theists make are factually accurate or defensible, that's fine, perhaps someone else will handle it? Maybe god and hell is real, perhaps it's just that you are incapable of explaining these things. Perhaps you lack evidence, though it exists. If I keep asking, I might find the person who can explain them, who does have evidence. Dismissing questions as "not genuine" is the sort of thing I would expect from someone who has found the answer they are comfortable with calling "ultimate" and has no desire to ask or address any more questions about the subject. I did not expect that you would be such a person, or make such dismissive remarks when asked a question about a part of your beliefs. What I get from you when I ask such a simple question is a long winded way of saying "no, I have no evidence that hell is actually real, and I don't want to discuss it". Disappointing. This shit isn't some game where people get +1's. It's lethal, it's serious, and every now and again I imagine that I might be able to have a serious discussion about it. You don't have to prove god exists, you can tackle hell on it's own yes? Show me how you've determined that the stories about hell can be trusted? Perhaps explain how such a thing as hell or a soul is even possible? Maybe show that these things which you've shown above (if you choose to do so) align with your particular concept of hell? Point to the place, show me how to get there (show me how the souls, which you'll have to demonstrate in the first place, get there). No, you'd rather just wave me away because I don't ask "genuine" questions? Garbage. I'm not going to open my mouth and get in the receiving position just because you have thoughts or beliefs. I believe that you have thoughts and beliefs, that's settled. What I'm asking you is whether or not your thoughts and beliefs are based in reality or fantasy. That's a genuine question, I think you know that it's a genuine question, and I personally believe that you've decided to be evasive about it because you know damn well you can't show any claims you'd like to offer about hell to be an accurate assessment or description of reality. I'm seriously fucking tired of constantly answering your camps questions honestly and to the best of my ability and getting nothing but crickets or evasive platitudes when I ask questions in return.