Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct. But the criminal does not throw himself in jail. The police do, acting on the direction of the sentencing judge. The criminal given the choice would probably just go home.

In this world the criminals have a commandment:

"thou shalt not get caught"

Ultimately if a criminal goes to jail it is due to their own criminal actions.
You can't blame the judge or the police for doing their jobs.

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that we throw ourselves into hell is ridiculous and unBiblical. God throws you into hell because he wants to.

How so? Hell is the choice of those who transgress the law and refuse to repent.

The reason God does the throwing is that because Hell is so far away He is the only person with the power to move a soul that great a distance.

As in the criminal analogy above if there is no sin on the soul then Hell is not an option.

If there is no repentance, forgiveness not sought then these actions of the sinner mean the soul cannot enter Heaven so they have chosen Hell.

God gives us free will and it is up to us to chose Him or reject Him.
Hell is for those who reject Him.

Barr125

philologos wrote: »

I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent. God is merciful and just. God's justice was satisfied because Jesus took the punishment that we deserved unto Himself on the cross.

I don't think that hell as a punishment is undeserved. We've rejected God and lived in contempt of His will. This is God's word and He's perfectly entitled to establish rule in it. We were under His loving rule from the beginning, and now we've turned our back on Him, that explains the fallen world we live in essentially. Jesus came into the world, and endured the wrath of God on the cross so that we would not have to. The penalty was paid, God's justice satisfied, and mercy received. This was costly.

There's no excuse. Jesus has offered us a way to know God. If we reject Him, then He will reject us.

God cannot be both just AND merciful. Being just means he's treats everyone equal and fairly. Being merciful means he treats everyone with leniency. No one can be both, as if he treats others justly and others mercifully then he is not just, and if he treats everyone mercifully then he cannot be just.

And was Jesus not God, as in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Unless you're using a different definition of God. If so, please could you define what you think He is?

Festus wrote:

God gives us free will and it is up to us to chose Him or reject Him.
Hell is for those who reject Him.

And what of those who commit heinous crimes but accept him? Or those who reject him, but follow the moral code you believe he set down? I find it hard to believe that Hell is reserved only for atheists.

And, if he gave us free will, then why give us the choice? It's basically saying ''I give you the option to believe in me, but if you don't, you're going to burn forever.''

Here's another scenario: I point a gun at someone and say ''I freely give you the option to give me all your money or refuse. But if you refuse, I shoot.'' Does that sound morally right or just?

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

And what of those who commit heinous crimes but accept him? Or those who reject him, but follow the moral code you believe he set down? I find it hard to believe that Hell is reserved only for atheists.

I think you mean believe in Him but remain persistent in sin. Not keeping His laws is rejecting Him.

Barr125 wrote: »

And, if he gave us free will, then why give us the choice? It's basically saying ''I give you the option to believe in me, but if you don't, you're going to burn forever.''

Do you realize the stupidity of that statement?

Barr125 wrote: »

Here's another scenario: I point a gun at someone and say ''I freely give you the option to give me all your money or refuse. But if you refuse, I shoot.'' Does that sound morally right or just?

That is a very bad scenario for obvious reasons. Here is a better one:

" A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and change your ways or you will die' "

If the patient refuses to change their ways and persists with the bad habits and dies is that the doctors fault?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

You can't blame the judge or the police for doing their jobs.

I don't blame them for doing their job. But again the point is that it is their job. It is not the criminals job to sentence himself, and if for example a judge sentenced a shop lifter to firing squad you wouldn't go "Well the shop lifter threw himself into that firing squad"

The responsibility for the punishment a criminal will face lies with the judge, not the criminal.

God is responsible for both judging that an eternity of torture is a fitting punishment to a finite amount of (often minor) disobedience, and is responsible for physically sending people there.

Festus wrote: »

How so? Hell is the choice of those who transgress the law and refuse to repent.

It is not a choice, if it was a choice few would choose it.

Festus wrote: »

The reason God does the throwing is that because Hell is so far away He is the only person with the power to move a soul that great a distance.

Exactly. Humans do not have the ability to transport their spirits anywhere.

Festus wrote: »

God gives us free will and it is up to us to chose Him or reject Him.
Hell is for those who reject Him.

Choosing to reject him is different to choosing hell. Hell is God's punishment for when we choose to reject him. That is his choice, like a judge choosing to sentence you to death by electrocution for skipping the line at the cinema.

Barr125

Festus wrote: »

1. I think you mean believe in Him but remain persistent in sin. Not keeping His laws is rejecting Him.




2. Do you realize the stupidity of that statement?




3. That is a very bad scenario for obvious reasons. Here is a better one:

" A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and change your ways or you will die' "

If the patient refuses to change their ways and persists with the bad habits and dies is that the doctors fault?

1. So, because I simply do not believe in him, but live my life as good as I can, I deserve the same punishment as murderers, rapists and child-molesters? Also tell me, have you ever eaten shellfish?

2. No, please, enlighten me. Because as far as I can see, that's basically what you're saying. We have free will, but we MUST worship God, otherwise, eternal burning in Hell.

Festus wrote:

Hell is for those who reject Him.

i.e. accept God or burn in Hell.

3. No, that scenario implies that all the patient has to do is give up the ''bad habits'' and he'll be fine. I have no ''bad habits'' yet I'm still going to die. So lets expand that scenario:
" A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and pay me this exorbitant amount of money so I can give you this medication or you will die' " The payment in your case is worship.

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

1. So, because I simply do not believe in him, but live my life as good as I can, I deserve the same punishment as murderers, rapists and child-molesters? Also tell me, have you ever eaten shellfish?

You do not simply not believe for the simply reason that you have gone to great lenghts and expended much effort in justifying you reasons to choose not to believe.

Barr125 wrote: »

2. No, please, enlighten me. Because as far as I can see, that's basically what you're saying. We have free will, but we MUST worship God, otherwise, eternal burning in Hell. i.e. accept God or burn in Hell.

Go back and read your question again. It might help if you read it out loud.
The problem is your logic. But it's moot anyway as you have chosen not to believe in God and hence not to believe in Hell so why are you so worried about it?

Barr125 wrote: »

3. No, that scenario implies that all the patient has to do is give up the ''bad habits'' and he'll be fine. I have no ''bad habits'' yet I'm still going to die. So lets expand that scenario:
" A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and pay me this exorbitant amount of money so I can give you this medication or you will die' " The payment in your case is worship.

No lets not, you're introducing irrelevancies and I'm trying to keep this simple for you. In my analogy the bad habits are sins and like most bad habits can be given up. We do not pay for forgiveness, that's a gift.

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't blame them for doing their job. But again the point is that it is their job. It is not the criminals job to sentence himself, and if for example a judge sentenced a shop lifter to firing squad you wouldn't go "Well the shop lifter threw himself into that firing squad"

The responsibility for the punishment a criminal will face lies with the judge, not the criminal.

And what is the criminals responsibility? To remain a criminal a risk punishment or to cease and desist?

Zombrex wrote: »

God is responsible for both judging that an eternity of torture is a fitting punishment to a finite amount of (often minor) disobedience, and is responsible for physically sending people there.

Disobedience is disobedience. Those that repent and seek forgiveness with a contrite heart before they die won't go to hell.
It is the souls responsibility to exercise free will and make that choice.
If they chose not to they are choosing hell be default because their soul will not be able to tolerate the presence of God.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not a choice, if it was a choice few would choose it.

It is a choice and many choose it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Choosing to reject him is different to choosing hell.

Well, if you reject Him you also reject Heaven. Hell is the only other option.
So rejecting Him is choosing Hell.

Zombrex wrote: »

Hell is God's punishment for when we choose to reject him.

Agreement at last. Thank you.

Zombrex wrote: »

That is his choice, like a judge choosing to sentence you to death by electrocution for skipping the line at the cinema.

No. He chose to give us free will. We choose how we exercise that free will. The choices we make are what determine our ultimate destiny.

For example, atheists chose not to believe in God. They have the free will to make that choice and good luck to them. For whatever reason they have no interest in why what happens them after death. Some interested in why they are here and make stuff up to keep themselves in the belief that they are moderately happy after a fashion.
Some see the benefit of a moral life and live accordingly. Some, and probably many, choose to life an immoral life. One has to presume that those that do chose an immoral life do so because they have chosen to believe in something they cannot prove, namely that nothing happens them after death.

Now, once death comes upon them and they see that everything they rejected is true is it not unreasonable for God to reject them as they rejected Him?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

But you say that Lazarus was not resurrected. Fine; either the Bible is lying or you have misunderstood the term 'resurrection'.

I see. So there are only two possibilities - either I am wrong or the Bible is. It couldn't be that you lack understanding. Of course not!

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yes, I was asking you but you can't answer, can you?

I don't believe that you ever asked an honest question. You've only asked enough to allow you to get the next humourless and ill-tempered retort in, which seems to be your entire reason for posting on this forum.

OK, so here is an attempt an an answer. The resurrection of Jesus is different from the resuscitation of Lazarus (and you can call it resurrection if you like; it makes no odds) in that Jesus' resurrection had eschatological ramifications - namely that he was the first fruits of the new creation and all that entails. Now apart from something extraordinarily strange happening to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus there is no sense that the authors attributed cosmic significance to either incident. Additionally, Jesus continues to live whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus are dead in the ground.

You don't actually have to believe the above to recognise the difference.

Now, did you have a point?

Barr125

Festus wrote: »

You do not simply not believe for the simply reason that you have gone to great lenghts and expended much effort in justifying you reasons to choose not to believe.



Go back and read your question again. It might help if you read it out loud.
The problem is your logic. But it's moot anyway as you have chosen not to believe in God and hence not to believe in Hell so why are you so worried about it?

to the first point.....what??? ''I do not simply not believe for the simply reason...''?? But no, I don't believe because Christianity (or any religion with supernatural deity/deities) has not presented any reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I don't need to go to any lengths to justify my position. I have no problem with personal faith. My problem is with the faith you're adhering to, the conform or suffer and you can wrap it up any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

Fanny Cradock

Barr125 wrote: »

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

Not recently. Are you going to quote Leviticus to us?

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

That isn't what Christianity teaches. You aren't damned for not believing in God. You are damned by your sin as are all of us. And that is where Christ comes in.

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

to the first point.....what??? ''I do not simply not believe for the simply reason...''?? But no, I don't believe because Christianity (or any religion with supernatural deity/deities) has not presented any reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I don't need to go to any lengths to justify my position.

Atheism has not presented any reasonable evidence to the contrary, despite many atheists expending huge amounts of time, money and expertise there is still no evidence that the faith atheists have is worth subscribing to.

Barr125 wrote: »

I have no problem with personal faith. My problem is with the faith you're adhering to, the conform or suffer and you can wrap it up any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.

Why do you have a problem with my adhering to my Faith if you have no problem with personal faith? Surely it is my choice to believe what I believe just as it is you choice for you to believe what you believe.

Barr125 wrote: »

And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.

What evidence do I have that you are a person to be trusted?

Barr125 wrote: »

I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.

If you are not worried about it what are you doing here?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That isn't what Christianity teaches. You aren't damned for not believing in God. You are damned by your sin as are all of us. And that is where Christ comes in.

I'm sorry but according to Catholicism you are damned for not being a Catholic.

chickendinner

I really hope there is a god

All the cool people are going to hell
and I dont believe in God, so I guess
I am going there.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

they have chosen to believe in something they cannot prove, namely that nothing happens them after death.

The irony, its delicious:)

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. So there are only two possibilities - either I am wrong or the Bible is. It couldn't be that you lack understanding. Of course not!

Perhaps but your (the Christians posting here) evasiveness and obfuscation isn't helping.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that you ever asked an honest question. You've only asked enough to allow you to get the next humourless and ill-tempered retort in, which seems to be your entire reason for posting on this forum.

Well I don't believe you ever gave an honest answer which seems to be your main motivation for posting here.

And you have some front to accuse me of being 'humourless' and 'bad-tempered'.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so here is an attempt an an answer. The resurrection of Jesus is different from the resuscitation of Lazarus (and you can call it resurrection if you like; it makes no odds) in that Jesus' resurrection had eschatological ramifications - namely that he was the first fruits of the new creation and all that entails. Now apart from something extraordinarily strange happening to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus there is no sense that the authors attributed cosmic significance to either incident. Additionally, Jesus continues to live whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus are dead in the ground.

You don't actually have to believe the above to recognise the difference.

Now, did you have a point?

Yes, I do. How can it be said that God sacrificed His Son if the Son still lives?

And if Jesus is God then how could He have died in order to be resurrected?

I believe that Jesus was rescued from the cross before He died by Joseph of Aramathea; the only one who ever attested to Jesus' death was him.

Faith in the resurrection is not proof of the resurrection.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

The irony, its delicious:)

Glad you like it. In case I made a bollix of the grammar I will clarify what I meant.

Atheists chose to believe that nothing will happen them after death even though they cannot prove that nothing will happen them after death.

I guess the irony is that atheism is a faith based ideology.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Atheists chose to believe that nothing will happen them after death even though they cannot prove that nothing will happen them after death.

Let me point it out so with a slight change to your post.

Christians chose to believe that something will happen to them after death even though they cannot prove that something will happen them after death.

The rejection of a unsubstantiated claim is not faith based by the way.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Let me point it out so with a slight change to your post.

That's rude. Can you not make something of your own up?

muppeteer wrote: »

The rejection of a unsubstantiated claim is not faith based by the way.

So you have no faith in atheism then.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

That's rude. Can you not make something of your own up?

I wouldn't consider it rude to point out the sticky conclusion implied by your own words via comparison. Either way no rudeness was intended.

So you have no faith in atheism then.

None is required in the position of atheism.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

None is required in the position of atheism.

So what you are saying is you don't believe in atheism

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So what you are saying is you don't believe in atheism

I'm saying I don't have to have faith in atheism to believe it is true. I only have to reject theist claims.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm saying I don't have to have faith in atheism to believe it is true. I only have to reject theist claims.

Do you believe that?

marty1985

himnextdoor wrote: »

I'm sorry but according to Catholicism you are damned for not being a Catholic.

I don't think this is true. Perhaps someone can clear it up here, but I'm pretty sure Vatican II was when the current teaching on this was laid out, which goes something like this in a nut shell: salvation can be attained by members of other Christian denominations and members of non-Christian faiths, and people who cannot be blamed for their own ignorance, for lack of a better word.

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

Do you believe that?

Why wouldn't I believe what I just typed?

Do you see above where the sticky situation lay? Where you said atheists needed proof to believe in something without proof? Do you see the logic fail there?

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Why wouldn't I believe what I just typed?

So you do believe then.

muppeteer wrote: »

Do you see above where the sticky situation lay? Where you said atheists needed proof to believe in something without proof? Do you see the logic fail there?

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

Wrong. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in any god or gods, so that means I am an atheist.

There's a difference between faith and trust. I don't have faith in science, but I trust science. I trust that when a scientific discovery is made, it is subjected to tests, peer-reviewed and has sufficient evidence to prove it. No faith is required.

Atheism is different. There is nothing to believe or have faith in with atheism. Once you have no belief or faith in god or gods, the result is atheism.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Wrong. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in any god or gods, so that means I am an atheist.

There's a difference between faith and trust. I don't have faith in science, but I trust science. I trust that when a scientific discovery is made, it is subjected to tests, peer-reviewed and has sufficient evidence to prove it. No faith is required.

Atheism is different. There is nothing to believe or have faith in with atheism. Once you have no belief or faith in god or gods, the result is atheism.

Do you believe that?

muppeteer

Festus wrote: »

So you do believe then.

Yep, I believe that theist claims are false. Others just reject theist claims as unconvincing.

No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.

It not a requirement to have faith"2 belief that is not based on proof" in a position if proof in not required of it. Atheism does not require positive proof as it only requires the lack of belief in deities, not a claim. If atheism made positive claims then it would require some sort of proof to believe in it without falling back on faith.
Those atheists who make the positive claim that "gods are likely a human invention" are required to have some sort of proof/backup.

Festus

muppeteer wrote: »

Yep, I believe that theist claims are false.

and you believe atheist claims are true?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Do you believe that?

Absolutely.

Is that somehow less plausible than belief in a God who created a man and woman and put them beside a Tree of Knowledge where they were tempted into eating an apple by a talking snake which caused them to be sinners and cast out of Eden and the best way God could fix this was to impregnate a virgin with his son who was part of him and have his son/him die for those sins and come back from the dead three days later etc etc.

Atheism is exactly what it says in the book (dictionary, not Bible). It is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I don't believe in any gods, therefore I am an atheist. I didn't choose atheism, it's just something I am as a result of not having a belief in a deity. It requires no faith, because it is what occurs due to not having faith in gods.

And as for science, there is no 'faith' required. These things are tested and continuously revised as knowledge improves. Nothing is taken at it's word. It is all continuously tested and examined, studied by many people using knowledge gained from other such studies. And if it is later found out to be wrong, it is adjusted accordingly. I can trust modern science because it doesn't require faith or a belief. It is purely based on the evidence available. Science today is hugely different to what science was 500 years ago. Is religion? Has the Bible changed?

Tim Minchin says it best:
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."