When atheists go too far

Ellis Dee

farna_boy wrote: »

Just wondering, where in the Bible does it say that you will burn forever?

As far as I remember from my teachings, it was a temporary type of thing i.e. you got sent to hell until you were sufficiently punished/ learned your lesson, and then you were allowed to go "upstairs".

No, from my days (admittedly a long time ago) with the Screechin' Butchers, I remember that there was Purgatory, where you sizzled for maybe a long time, but then went upstairs. Then there was Hell, where you sizzled for ever and ever and ever ... amen. A billion zillion years and you hadn't even made a dent in your hard time ...:eek:

They also had a place called Limbo, where unfortunates like unbaptised babies went to, but eventually got out of. I think that place was done away with some time back when the Vatican boys had another look at the sacred texts or something and did some penal reform.

You couldn't make some of this stuff up, would be my first thought, but then I realised that someone actually did. :rolleyes:

RichieC

Hell ran out of space so they knocked in the wall and combined it with purgatory.

drkpower

RichieC wrote: »

He doesnt have a cheek to turn, my good man. He's immaterial.

No doubt. But the real depravity of Jakkass/Philiologos' view is that he actually does believe and advocate that you and I will burn in hell for eternity. That is the real sickness in his view.

Ellis Dee

RichieC wrote: »

Most are raised into it. the few "born agains" usually fall on hard times with drink drugs or sex/ money before they start banging on about god.. which isn't independent thinking, it's despair.

Despair coupled with a form of consolidation. They get rid of numerous minor problems and replace them with one big one - heroin or Jesus. Alvin Toffler wrote about it very well in Future Shock.

RichieC

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt. But the real depravity of Jakkass/Philiologos' view is that he actually does believe and advocate that you and I will burn in hell for eternity. That is the real sickness in his view.

Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


We win

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


We win

What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.

Knasher

RichieC wrote: »

Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


We win

Sure, it's all fun and games until we run into some law that the religious impose on the rest of us and somebody gets hurt.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.

What guilt? I was raised catholic ffs.. we're born guilty according to you lot.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

What guilt? I was raised catholic ffs.. we're born guilty according to you lot.

What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?

Antikythera

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?

So you don't subscribe to the theory of original sin?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?

Christians in general... are we not according to youse born with sin?

the way I see the world is we're just intelligent monkeys born to take as much enjoyment out of our fleeting existence as at all possible.


I call it the church of not a single fu*k was given that day.

dpe

philologos wrote: »

If God is the Creator of all things, including the laws of physics, chemistry and biology why would He Himself be bound by them? Especially when Christians and Jews believe that God exists external to the universe.

Because once you're in this universe, you're bound by its laws (we know this through science, maybe you've heard of it?), so an entity not bound by its laws, would by definition, break them, and break the universe, and by the way this extends to any manifestation something that breaks the laws of the physics, including communication. Science has proved that the laws of physics are consistent across the observable universe. This isn't faith, this is observable and verifiable.

If on the other hand God is external to the universe and can't interact with it, then you're describing the deist belief of the God who sets the wheels in motion, but that's it, he's an absentee landlord, and all this heaven and hell and god's love stuff is irrelevant because he can't deliver on that kind of promise. Funnily enough its a belief I can kind of get behind, because its logically the only way a creator could actually exist (I don't believe it btw, but its less silly than the desert God of Israel).

philologos

Antikythera wrote: »

So you don't subscribe to the theory of original sin?

Original sin isn't mentioned in the Bible. We are inclined towards sin, but we aren't somehow guilty of what other people did. In terms of our relationship with God we are guilty in terms of how we've turned our backs against Him and His standards which are in our best interests.

It would be odd for an atheist to claim that Christians should somehow have issues with guilt because according to Christianity there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Meaning that Jesus has paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.

dpe wrote: »

Because once you're in this universe, you're bound by its laws (we know this through science, maybe you've heard of it?), so an entity not bound by its laws, would by definition, break them, and break the universe, and by the way this extends to any manifestation something that breaks the laws of the physics, including communication. Science has proved that the laws of physics are consistent across the observable universe. This isn't faith, this is observable and verifiable.

Indeed. God isn't in the universe but external to it and can act in it. If God created the laws of physics or biology or chemistry as far as I'm concerned it isn't a huge leap to suggest that He could manipulate these properties if He so desired.

It is only if we assume that God doesn't exist that this is ridiculous, and I recognise that. However, as far as I'm concerned the assumption that God doesn't exist in and of itself is an absurdity.

dpe

Ellis Dee wrote: »

You couldn't make some of this stuff up, would be my first thought, but then I realised that someone actually did. :rolleyes:

They did indeed, and then sold you time off for good behaviour. It was one of the reasons for the reformation; the catholic church stretching the shell game just a bit too far.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

It would be odd for an atheist to claim that Christians should somehow have issues with guilt because according to Christianity there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Meaning that Jesus has paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.

Well that settles it, so. no need for religion anymore!

Praise _______

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Well that settles it, so. no need for religion anymore!

Praise _______

There isn't a need for religion. There is a need for God and for what He has done for us.

Christian living is about living each day in thankfulness to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ. If one rejects this then one is rejecting God and a chance to put things right with Him.

As far as I see it you're not accountable for the sins of others, but for your own sin (sin being falling short of God's standards). That's true for me, you and everyone else as far as I see it.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Christian living is about living each day in thankfulness to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ.

This doesn't even make syntactic sense..

"to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ"

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

This doesn't even make syntactic sense..

"to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ"

Tell me how it doesn't, I'm interested.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.

What misconception?

drkpower

RichieC wrote: »

Just laugh about it..

Oh, I do.

But bigots like Jakkass/Philologos, who advocate the eternal pain and suffering of good people need to be challenged. And ridiculed. And banished to the fringes of society where their sick & depraved views do as little damage as possible.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Tell me how it doesn't, I'm interested.

Tell us what he achieved on our behalf THROUGH Christ then... as the story goes he put himself inside a palistinian and nerd raged against money lenders, pulled off a few tricks then got beaten half to death and nailed onto a cross... then years of bleakness where anyone who dared say otherwise was set on fire... so what did he achieve?

look at the amount of starving people on earth... all the conflict.. needless suffering...

what exactly has he achieved through Christ?

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Tell us what he achieved on our behalf THROUGH Christ then... as the story goes he put himself inside a palistinian and nerd raged against money lenders, pulled off a few tricks then got beaten half to death and nailed onto a cross... then years of bleakness where anyone who dared say otherwise was set on fire... so what did he achieve?

He paid for the sins of mankind on the cross so that we wouldn't have to. According to Christianity (particularly emphasised in Romans 6 if you want to look it up) as Jesus died on the cross our old selves died with Him, and as He was resurrected we came to new life in Him. Hence why Christians often use the phrase "born again" which has become somewhat of a cliché really as most people don't understand what it means.

RichieC wrote: »

look at the amount of starving people on earth... all the conflict.. needless suffering...

I believe that we as people should be called to help others who are created in God's image. Many Christians do a huge deal to help alleviate conflict and suffering in the world. I don't get what your point is here.

RichieC wrote: »

what exactly has he achieved through Christ?

See above.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

He paid for the sins of mankind on the cross so that we wouldn't have to.

...unless of course, you dont or cant believe in god, in which case, of course, you will be in agony for eternity.....

philologos wrote: »

I believe that we as people should be called to help others who are created in God's image

....except those who dont or cant believe in god. Lets not help them; lets condemn them to an eternity of pain and suffering. What a genuinely depraved view.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

....except those who dont or cant believe in god. Lets not help them; lets condemn them to an eternity of pain and suffering. What a genuinely depraved view.

Where have I said that Christians shouldn't help non-believers? Hm.
Christians should help non-believers where they need it.

Bajingo

Dravokivich wrote: »

That may be true, but that doesn't stop some people from being agressive about thier beliefs (regardless of what it is they believe).

That's the point though.

Also, comparing religious intolerance to slagging of some ones preferred football team or political party is ridiculous. They're are competitive fields, with religion, there is no 'My god is better than your God', well, there shouldn't be. It's ideas like this that spawns hatred and I think Dawkins is only fuelling such hatred.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Where have I said that Christians shouldn't help non-believers? Hm.
Christians should help non-believers where they need it.

You have said that it is just that non-believers be condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering unless they convert. That is your view, Jakkass, isnt it?

super_furry

Isn't Dawkins taking the piss out of people for their beliefs the equivalent of them telling him he's going to hell?

drkpower

super_furry wrote: »

Isn't Dawkins taking the piss out of people for their beliefs the equivalent of them telling him he's going to hell?

Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

There is a fair difference there.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

There is a fair difference there.

Let's have a more accurate quotation less your spin:

I have answered very clearly: I don't think anyone should go to hell however if people reject God they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should go there. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision. That's my final position on this, any distortion is simply dishonest sophistry on your behalf that I have no time for.

super_furry

drkpower wrote: »

Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

There is a fair difference there.

Yes but both sides are so fervant in their beliefs/lake of beliefs that both arguments/insults bounce back off them. Neither side is ever going to convince the other that they're wrong and they're both wasting breath is trying to do so.