Arguments against the Afterlife

MisterEpicurus

Many religious people I've spoken to claim there is no purpose trying to create arguments against the concept of the afterlife as it's a 'faith' position. I don't really think it is. I think arguments can be made against the logical possibility and probability of such a place existing. While it can't be proven or disproven, efforts can be made to highlight the improbability of immortality.

Furthermore, considering that the afterlife is practically the ultimate prize of religion and a central tenet of religion existing in the first place, then arguments against the afterlife are probably equally interesting and important in helping to demolish another corner stone of religion.

So hopefully this thread can help create some arguments against the idea, I'll add a few ideas that bothers me with it;

1. Concept of Eternity and Numbing of Experience -- If you are exposed to something for a long time, you eventually get bored. Given that heaven or hell is supposed to be an eternity of praise/happiness, then only a limitation of feelings are supposed to be felt. Even if you think of the best experience you've ever had, you would be numbed to it if continually exposed to it. I don't understand why anyone would want this to be honest. This would be the same for hell, which brings me onto point two.

2. Immoral Concept of Hell -- Imagine a location on Earth where 'bad' people were continually tortured for their entire lives. I would certainly feel uncomfortable with such a regime and no doubt human rights watch would be on the move. But Hell exists right now and we are supposed to feel comfortable with such a location and forced to be happy about it in Heaven. People are apparently being tortured when you eat dinner, have sex, and sleep...you wouldn't be comfortable with it on Earth but we're expected to be comfortable with a celestial version. That's not an argument against it, but sounds too tribalistic to be real and immoral if it were.

Anyway, I'll start it off with those two. The idea we were pre-booked on a flight to a tourist destination which we can't decline is a horrible idea. And when we arrive to the destination and get off the wings, we have to have a good time and are permanently exposed to the numbing experience of praise and prostration.

Just my two cents.

MagicMarker

Best argument against an afterlife is the lack of argument for an afterlife.

Sonics2k

It's written in an old book, therefore it's true.

MisterEpicurus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Best argument against an afterlife is the lack of argument for an afterlife.

That's what's claimed, a 'faith' position. A lot of people do put forth arguments for it which are weak in my view, things like NDE'S and OBE's, plus the idea of the soul. But arguments about the reason why it exists, and what it is claimed to be like can be battled against, which is the purpose of this thread.

wonderfulname

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

That's what's claimed, a 'faith' position. A lot of people do put forth arguments for it which are weak in my view, things like NDE'S and OBE's, plus the idea of the soul. But arguments about the reason why it exists, and what it is claimed to be like can be battled against, which is the purpose of this thread.

Why do you care? It's not up to you to prove whether or not there's an afterlife, if I come up with random, completely abstract "faith" positions will you feel compelled to disprove them - even though it will be impossible, the great thing about faith is you can embellish to overcome that sort of nonsense - or will you recognise that I'm talking out of my arse and at any rate, the burden of proof is on me.

By the way, NDEs etc are as much a proof of an afterlife as quantum physics is of psychic powers, it has long been a tactic of the believer to utilise little understood ideas and phenomena to back up their position, not because it does so, but because the average joe can't argue against it, and some are even swayed by it.

Liamario

When an advanced alien raise comes to pay a visit; bringing with the the technology to bring people back to life, then we'll know. Until such time, let's stop making up stories.

token56

To be fair I first of all think you have to define what you mean by an afterlife and immortality. My albeit very basic understanding, and I more than welcome clarification on this is that immortality and the afterlife, certainly in the christian sense has more to do with your soul or spirit than you're physical sense lasting forever. So in terms of what you would feel I dont think our physical sense of "feelings" would be appropriate. I dont know how you describe or interrupt what your soul feels? I'm also of the understanding that eternity and afterlife is purely a spiritual concept and a never ending spiritual relationship with God, where hell is the eternal absence of this relationship (or something along those lines) rather than an actual place where people are punished etc and feel physical pain. I'm not at all religious so I dont know if someone would be able to clarify these points or point out if I am way off the mark.

Sonics2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXThbqU0dw4

robindch

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

then arguments against the afterlife are probably equally interesting and important in helping to demolish another corner stone of religion.

Without spending very much time on it:

1. The stories about the afterlife are clearly made up
2. The Old Testament doesn't say anything about an afterlife
3. The New Testament afterlife is suspiciously similar to ideas that existed within contemporaneous Ancient Greek lit
4. People want it to be true

MisterEpicurus

token56 wrote: »

To be fair I first of all think you have to define what you mean by an afterlife and immortality. My albeit very basic understanding, and I more than welcome clarification on this is that immortality and the afterlife, certainly in the christian sense has more to do with your soul or spirit than you're physical sense lasting forever. So in terms of what you would feel I dont think our physical sense of "feelings" would be appropriate. I dont know how you describe or interrupt what your soul feels? I'm also of the understanding that eternity and afterlife is purely a spiritual concept and a never ending spiritual relationship with God, where hell is the eternal absence of this relationship (or something along those lines) rather than an actual place where people are punished etc and feel physical pain. I'm not at all religious so I dont know if someone would be able to clarify these points or point out if I am way off the mark.

Well the Christian view definitely expresses multiple times that the sole objective is for all the mind, all the soul etc to thank and praise the Lord that created you. So considering I'm using this example for the sake of argument, but the numbing experience of immortality can be applied to most faiths in my view.

Well if the afterlife about how I feel right now is essentially changed then it wouldn't be me, so I think it's safe to assume the minimum it has to be would be something I could totally relate with, or else it wouldn't be me. I think that's a fair minimum assumption to make with respect to feeling. If you stripped these 'feelings', then you would essentially be stripping me of my personality and the thing that minimum that would be needed for me to 'know' in a sense it was me.

MisterEpicurus

robindch wrote: »

The New Testament afterlife is suspiciously similar to ideas that existed within contemporaneous Ancient Greek lit

Would you be able to provide a detailed link on that, I'd be interested to learn more about that, thanks!

Newsite

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Many religious people I've spoken to claim there is no purpose trying to create arguments against the concept of the afterlife as it's a 'faith' position. I don't really think it is. I think arguments can be made against the logical possibility and probability of such a place existing. While it can't be proven or disproven, efforts can be made to highlight the improbability of immortality.

Furthermore, considering that the afterlife is practically the ultimate prize of religion and a central tenet of religion existing in the first place, then arguments against the afterlife are probably equally interesting and important in helping to demolish another corner stone of religion.

So hopefully this thread can help create some arguments against the idea, I'll add a few ideas that bothers me with it;

1. Concept of Eternity and Numbing of Experience -- If you are exposed to something for a long time, you eventually get bored. Given that heaven or hell is supposed to be an eternity of praise/happiness, then only a limitation of feelings are supposed to be felt. Even if you think of the best experience you've ever had, you would be numbed to it if continually exposed to it. I don't understand why anyone would want this to be honest. This would be the same for hell, which brings me onto point two.

2. Immoral Concept of Hell -- Imagine a location on Earth where 'bad' people were continually tortured for their entire lives. I would certainly feel uncomfortable with such a regime and no doubt human rights watch would be on the move. But Hell exists right now and we are supposed to feel comfortable with such a location and forced to be happy about it in Heaven. People are apparently being tortured when you eat dinner, have sex, and sleep...you wouldn't be comfortable with it on Earth but we're expected to be comfortable with a celestial version. That's not an argument against it, but sounds too tribalistic to be real and immoral if it were.

Anyway, I'll start it off with those two. The idea we were pre-booked on a flight to a tourist destination which we can't decline is a horrible idea. And when we arrive to the destination and get off the wings, we have to have a good time and are permanently exposed to the numbing experience of praise and prostration.

Just my two cents.

The flaw in the above is that you are limited by the bounds of human experience and imagination in coming up with your take on the concept of an afterlife. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, there are things that we don't know we don't know. For all we know heaven and hell could involve experiences that the human mind could not process or imagine. So that may make any conceptualising futile.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

People are apparently being tortured when you eat dinner, have sex, and sleep...you wouldn't be comfortable with it on Earth

You want to have a think about that one again? Nobody condones it, in fact we all try to do our bit to help combat it (donating to charity, relief efforts, etc), but what does 'not comfortable with it' actually mean in real terms?

DublinWriter

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

1. Concept of Eternity and Numbing of Experience -- If you are exposed to something for a long time, you eventually get bored. Given that heaven or hell is supposed to be an eternity of praise/happiness, then only a limitation of feelings are supposed to be felt.

I'm no expert, but I think within the Catholic faith there is a 'beatification' process the soul goes through when you enter heaven, enabling you to fully dig the experience. The only reason I know this is from a conversation Stephen Dedalus has in Ulysses when a friend teases him about spending an eternity in the company of a very boring teacher in heaven and Stephen replies saying something along the lines of "don't be silly, Christ beatifies us all when we enter heaven".

There's no arguments for my belief but I don't really expect anyone else to believe it so... it's all good

As for this thread, it seems a little pointless. There's no arguments for these afterlives, they can't be proven/disproven, and most importantly, anyone who does believe them isn't going to be convinced by your OP. They'll just take it as more faith.
The idea of how boring heaven would be sounds interesting to explore but it's not really an argument

wonderfulname

token56 wrote: »

To be fair I first of all think you have to define what you mean by an afterlife and immortality. My albeit very basic understanding, and I more than welcome clarification on this is that immortality and the afterlife, certainly in the christian sense has more to do with your soul or spirit than you're physical sense lasting forever. So in terms of what you would feel I dont think our physical sense of "feelings" would be appropriate. I dont know how you describe or interrupt what your soul feels? I'm also of the understanding that eternity and afterlife is purely a spiritual concept and a never ending spiritual relationship with God, where hell is the eternal absence of this relationship (or something along those lines) rather than an actual place where people are punished etc and feel physical pain. I'm not at all religious so I dont know if someone would be able to clarify these points or point out if I am way off the mark.

I hate to break it to you but your "feeling", or "soul" is as physical as your hand...

Joe1919

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Would you be able to provide a detailed link on that, I'd be interested to learn more about that, thanks!

Cicero in 'The Nature of the Gods' (Book 3, paragraph XIX below) seems to suggest that the idea of an afterlife was used to motivate valour and courage in soldiers and to make death more acceptable.

'It is easy to observe, likewise, that if in many countries people have paid divine honors to the memory of those who have signalized their courage, it was done in order to animate others to practise virtue, and to expose themselves the more willingly to dangers in their country’s cause. From this motive the Athenians have deified Erechtheus and his daughters, and have erected also a temple, called Leocorion, to the daughters of Leus......'

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Cicero3.html

MisterEpicurus

Newsite wrote: »

You want to have a think about that one again? Nobody condones it, in fact we all try to do our bit to help combat it (donating to charity, relief efforts, etc), but what does 'not comfortable with it' actually mean in real terms?

Well, 'not comfortable with it' is probably an underestimation. The very fact people don't condone it is the great thing, it should also mean they should reject the idea of hell which is magnitudes greater than any human squabbles.

I'd like to hear more Christians denounce the place even if they believed it did exist.

MisterEpicurus

Newsite wrote: »

The flaw in the above is that you are limited by the bounds of human experience and imagination in coming up with your take on the concept of an afterlife. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, there are things that we don't know we don't know. For all we know heaven and hell could involve experiences that the human mind could not process or imagine. So that may make any conceptualising futile.

But human experiences and imagination must be manifest in the afterlife or else it wouldn't be the person who's there, it would be a fragment of a person who's only sole coerced objective would be to prostrate towards the creator.

Newsite

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Well, 'not comfortable with it' is probably an underestimation. The very fact people don't condone it is the great thing, it should also mean they should reject the idea of hell which is magnitudes greater than any human squabbles.

I'd like to hear more Christians denounce the place even if they believed it did exist.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should say - 'mm, God, I think you got that wrong'.

antiskeptic

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

1. Concept of Eternity and Numbing of Experience -- If you are exposed to something for a long time,

Time? In eternity there is no time. Time is a created thing, And so, you need to rework this..

you eventually get bored.

Given that heaven or hell is supposed to be an eternity of praise/happiness, then only a limitation of feelings are supposed to be felt. Even if you think of the best experience you've ever had, you would be numbed to it if continually exposed to it.

But if God is infinitely big then how can you get to the 'end' of him. You could have happiness increasing forever. And so, no statis

2. Immoral Concept of Hell -- Imagine a location on Earth where 'bad' people were continually tortured for their entire lives. I would certainly feel uncomfortable with such a regime and no doubt human rights watch would be on the move. But Hell exists right now and we are supposed to feel comfortable with such a location

Ultimately, I've no problem with folk choosing to be without God (a.k.a. Hell).

That's not an argument against it, but sounds too tribalistic to be real and immoral if it were.

Immoral against whose standard? Not mine. God-given choice is a great thing - even if it means choosing against God

The Quadratic Equation

There is most certainly an afterlife, it all depends on what form you believe it converts to.

"energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another"

Sonics2k

There are 7 Billion people in the world.
There's around 2.1 Billion Christians in the world.

Now, to me, and I may be completely misguided here, that means 4.9 Billion people are going to go to Hell, simply because they're not Christian.

Call me a pessimist, but this sounds like a bit of a flaw from a God that apparently created man-kind and loves them all equally.
Is it not, perhaps, just a wee bit unfair that some bloke, living in some forest in Brazil, who's never encountered people from outside his own village, who's worked for his tribe and family to feed them. Never killed a man, never stole anything from anyone, but lived in peace with nature.

But apparently, he's a dirty heathen and will spend eternity in hell, being tortured daily in extreme agony.

Y'know what, you guys can keep your afterlife and Bible and shove it.
:pac:

antiskeptic

Sonics2k wrote: »

Is it not, perhaps, just a wee bit unfair that some bloke, living in some forest in Brazil, who's never encountered people from outside his own village, who's worked for his tribe and family to feed them. Never killed a man, never stole anything from anyone, but lived in peace with nature.

But apparently, he's a dirty heathen and will spend eternity in hell, being tortured daily in extreme agony.

Y'know what, you guys can keep your afterlife and Bible and shove it.
:pac:

Large swathes of Christianity see no problem with such a man potentially being saved and 'going to heaven'. "Christian" is a status one holds before God - whatever about the earthly labels that might be attached to people.

Conversely, some with the label "Christian" won't be going to heaven.

Think about it - Old Testament figures weren't Christians since Christ hadn't yet walked the earth. Yet no Christian doubts King David is in heaven

-

No need to shove the bible anywhere yet it would seem. Best find out the basics before letting go with both barrels heh?

Sonics2k

Then what's the point of baptism?

How about, the same guy, does all the same things. But he's Gay.

The Quadratic Equation

Sonics2k wrote: »

There are 7 Billion people in the world.
There's around 2.1 Billion Christians in the world.

Now, to me, and I may be completely misguided here, that means 4.9 Billion people are going to go to Hell, simply because they're not Christian.

Call me a pessimist, but this sounds like a bit of a flaw from a God that apparently created man-kind and loves them all equally.
Is it not, perhaps, just a wee bit unfair that some bloke, living in some forest in Brazil, who's never encountered people from outside his own village, who's worked for his tribe and family to feed them. Never killed a man, never stole anything from anyone, but lived in peace with nature.

But apparently, he's a dirty heathen and will spend eternity in hell, being tortured daily in extreme agony.

Y'know what, you guys can keep your afterlife and Bible and shove it.

Indeed, why bother finding out what Christians actually believe when you can pretend what they believe.
Much more comfy.

Daftendirekt

The arguments posted in the OP aren't really arguments against the existence of an afterlife. The fact that the afterlife might be boring doesn't mean there isn't one, just that it mightn't be all it's cracked up to be.

The basic argument against the afterlife is simply "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

If you want something more concrete, you need only look at psychoactive drugs, mental illness and brain injury. The fact that changes to the physical state of the brain can cause such drastic changes in personality doesn't exactly support the notion of a separate soul or spirit capable of surviving death.

robindch

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The New Testament afterlife is suspiciously similar to ideas that existed within contemporaneous Ancient Greek lit

Would you be able to provide a detailed link on that, I'd be interested to learn more about that, thanks!

Plato's "Myth of Er" is the last significant thought-experiment in his unsurpassable "Republic" and posits ideas which are central to christianity, which arose several centuries later. His ideas about an eternal, blissful afterlife granted as a reward for faithful, honest service in this one, are far more specific than the non-committal nonsense in the NT.

That said, if one was specific about any of this stuff to start with, then people would tend to perceive it immediately as false anyway, rather than as it is viewed, namely, as a vague, blankish canvas upon which one can paint one's own views, and later, draw one's own conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] if God is infinitely big [...]

Reminds me of these splendidly profound thinkers from, I believe, Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jj3OIgPeQk

Seems they're only concerned about size.

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, why bother finding out what Christians actually believe when you can pretend what they believe.
Much more comfy.

So, are you saying you don't need to be Christian to go to Heaven?

If so, then why do Christians constantly seek (like other religions do) to convert un-believers?

Sonics2k

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me of these splendidly profound thinkers from, I believe, Texas:



Seems they're only concerned about size.

Truly a lyrical masterpiece.

robindch

Sonics2k wrote: »

why do Christians constantly seek (like other religions do) to convert un-believers?

Because religion has evolved to become the cultural process we see today, one whose only purpose is to produce more copies of itself. It's the ultimate selfish meme.

Religion doesn't care about people or ideas, all it cares about is its next meal.

MisterEpicurus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Time? In eternity there is no time. Time is a created thing, And so, you need to rework this..

But if God is infinitely big then how can you get to the 'end' of him. You could have happiness increasing forever. And so, no statis

Ultimately, I've no problem with folk choosing to be without God (a.k.a. Hell).

Immoral against whose standard? Not mine. God-given choice is a great thing - even if it means choosing against God

If we were to discover that the Universe is eternal in the sense that of periodical expansion and contraction then those intervals would certainly contain time as we sense it. It would be difficult to be able to digest a 'timeless eternity', it would make it seem even more banal with the persistent prostration. Even if time were created in the sense of a word for change, then we still experience during what that definition is, regardless of the title we ascribe to it.

"You could have happiness increasing forever" -- Well, if that makes it comfortable for you to believe, then you can think that. Sounds slightly desperate if I'm going to be totally honest.

As for the cheap comment that you have no problem if people reject god and depart into Hell, well that must clearly show the inferior morality of some theists in the clearest possible light.

How is "God-given choice" a choice if it's given...does that not strike you as a major contradiction of terms. In other words, god decides to give us the freedom of choice. However, we are practically threatened to choose one of those 'free options'. If we accept, great, we praise for eternity, if we reject, then we depart into eternal flames. What type of morality is that?

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, why bother finding out what Christians actually believe when you can pretend what they believe.
Much more comfy.

Well considering you all believe different **** it's not worth the effort.

kylith

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ultimately, I've no problem with folk choosing to be without God (a.k.a. Hell).

You have no problem with people being tortured and burned for all eternity while you sit on a cloud with JC sipping icy margeritas? With that little caring for your fellow humans I'd imagine that you'll be down in the pit with the rest of us.

dead one

kylith wrote: »

You have no problem with people being tortured and burned for all eternity while you sit on a cloud with JC sipping icy margeritas? With that little caring for your fellow humans I'd imagine that you'll be down in the pit with the rest of us.

You don't understand,People are/were being tortured and burned in the name of development/education, in the name of law and order, in the name of blessing; in the name: religion; in the name of the most merciful Christ.

Sonics2k

That makes no sense at all, and also contradicts what TQE said.

I love when you guys skip around questions.

antiskeptic

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If we were to discover that the Universe is eternal in the sense that of periodical expansion and contraction then those intervals would certainly contain time as we sense it.

That isn't the sense of eternal being utilised though. You're speaking about time never ending backwards or forwards. I'm speaking of no time at all

It would be difficult to be able to digest a 'timeless eternity', it would make it seem even more banal with the persistent prostration.

Your projecting into something you have no experience of and so must remain silent in the face of what's possible. What is clear however, is that time based notions (such a boredom) cannot be assumed to apply.

Even if time were created in the sense of a word for change, then we still experience during what that definition is, regardless of the title we ascribe to it.

Again, you're speaking too confidently of what you cannot yet know.

"You could have happiness increasing forever" -- Well, if that makes it comfortable for you to believe, then you can think that. Sounds slightly desperate if I'm going to be totally honest.

Sounds like the "boredom" strand of your argument has unravelled - if you were actually going to be totally honest.

As for the cheap comment that you have no problem if people reject god and depart into Hell, well that must clearly show the inferior morality of some theists in the clearest possible light.

Try to raise your game or we won't be discussing for much longer. This is a discussion forum where the argument is the point. Deal with the argument - not attacking the person.

How is "God-given choice" a choice if it's given...does that not strike you as a major contradiction of terms. In other words, god decides to give us the freedom of choice. However, we are practically threatened to choose one of those 'free options'. If we accept, great, we praise for eternity, if we reject, then we depart into eternal flames. What type of morality is that?

You don't believe in God so don't feel threatened with hell in fact. Yet over the course of your life you will make a choice with respect to God.

I'm not sure what's immoral about sending folk to Hell (where the flames are a figurative description for the intensity of the misery of the people there).

If folk freely chose to reject existing in the presence of God and existence outside the presence of God is per definition miserable, then what's the problem - morally speaking?

seamus

robindch wrote: »

Without spending very much time on it:

1. The stories about the afterlife are clearly made up
2. The Old Testament doesn't say anything about an afterlife
3. The New Testament afterlife is suspiciously similar to ideas that existed within contemporaneous Ancient Greek lit
4. People want it to be true

IMHO, there's very little else to it other than the fear that one is mortal.

antiskeptic

kylith wrote: »

You have no problem with people being tortured and burned for all eternity while you sit on a cloud with JC sipping icy margeritas? With that little caring for your fellow humans I'd imagine that you'll be down in the pit with the rest of us.

Being around God in eternity will have a flavour. Not being around God in eternity will have another flavour. The flavours will be clearly polar opposite. So far so straightforward.

Each person gets to choose whether to be around God for eternity or not. Them's the options and there is no choice given for options other than that since all other options are but partial versions of the one offered.

A persons choice won't be affected by whether they happen to be born in a Christian country or not, whether they lived before or after Christ, whether they heard of Christ or the bible or not. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - all have an equal opportunity. So far so fair


Those who choose not to be with God get what they choose for - which is fair enough. They won't be with God for eternity. They will exist in an environment containing whatever flavour goes with God's absence.

That flavour is described as on a par with burning in flames. It's not a nice flavour in other words.

Not even God can help the flavour of his absence being nasty - not if a pleasant flavour can only be obtained by his presence. Not even God can be present and absent at the same time.


-


I've no problem with people choosing to be without God for all eternity in the ultimate sense. Sure, I'd prefer if they choose to be with him. Indeed, I spend time on internet discussion forums trying to tell them (in various ways) to choose for God and take part in outreach in my church for the same reasons. I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy if I had one. I wouldn't wish it on Hitler. I can only imagine how horrendous hell would be.

But if that's a persons choice then that's there choice. End of .. when all is said and done.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not even God can help the flavour of his absence being nasty - not if a pleasant flavour can only be obtained by his presence. Not even God can be present and absent at the same time.

Hmmm. Us humble humans place wrongdoers in prisons that, whilst unpleasant, don't involve burning in fire and lakes of sulphur for the duration of your sentence.

I'd imagine a hypothetical omnipotent God could also so the same with those he perceives to be wrongdoers - if he wanted. Unless he is not in control of the system he created?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what's immoral about sending folk to Hell (where the flames are a figurative description for the intensity of the misery [...]

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] you're speaking too confidently of what you cannot yet know.

Cough

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. Us humble humans place wrongdoers in prisons that, whilst unpleasant, don't involve burning in fire and lakes of sulphur for the duration of your sentence.

With God is all pleasure. Without God is without pleasure (metaphor: lakes of fire)

God's offer is with or without him.

I'd imagine a hypothetical omnipotent God could also so the same with those he perceives to be wrongdoers - if he wanted. Unless he is not in control of the system he created?

If indeed. But he doesn't want to sustain sinners in his presence (which is what a less Hellish prison would entail for him). He want's rid of sin altogether.

This life is just a precursor to the main event. God is prepared to put up with sin in order to find out what it is you want - with or without him. Once that's done, the main event can commence. No more sin for God to have to put up with. Those in heaven rendered clean and unable to sin. Those in hell bound up and unable to express themselves sinfully.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Cough

Are you saying I can't know the mind of God?

kylith

dead one wrote: »

You don't understand,People are/were being tortured and burned in the name of development/education, in the name of law and order, in the name of blessing; in the name: religion; in the name of the most merciful Christ.

Oh, well, if they're being burned and tortured for their own good that alright then. Some merciful being, that; torturing people. Not at all like an abusive spouse smacking his wife around because of some percieved grievance, shouting "Baby, why do you make me hit you?!"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Each person gets to choose whether to be around God for eternity or not. Them's the options and there is no choice given for options other than that since all other options are but partial versions of the one offered.

Someone who's never heard of the Christian god can't make any choice but to be without them and therefore goes to hell to be tortured for something that they had no choice about. Lovely.

And don't come the 'they can choose to be with God' bit; if they don't know about a god then they can't choose to be with them or not; they are by default 'without'.

A persons choice won't be affected by whether they happen to be born in a Christian country or not, whether they lived before or after Christ, whether they heard of Christ or the bible or not. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - all have an equal opportunity. So far so fair

Nope; see my point above. If they don't know about the Christian god they can't choose but to be without him. Therefore they suffer for eternity for something that they knew nothing about, and therefore had no choice.

Those who choose not to be with God get what they choose for -

A choice which they may never have known they had

which is fair enough.

I wholeheartedly disagree

They won't be with God for eternity. They will exist in an environment containing whatever flavour goes with God's absence.

That flavour is described as on a par with burning in flames. It's not a nice flavour in other words

Not even God can help the flavour of his absence being nasty- not if a pleasant flavour can only be obtained by his presence. Not even God can be present and absent at the same time.

He's not particularly omnipotent then, is he? If he was then he could have hell being a bit boring, rather than eternal torment.

I've no problem with people choosing to be without God for all eternity in the ultimate sense. Sure, I'd prefer if they choose to be with him. Indeed, I spend time on internet discussion forums trying to tell them (in various ways) to choose for God and take part in outreach in my church for the same reasons. I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy if I had one. I wouldn't wish it on Hitler. I can only imagine how horrendous hell would be.

That's ok, apparently Hitler was quite devout and, since he most likely repented on his deathbed, so to speak, he should be up in heaven with JC.

But if that's a persons choice then that's there choice. End of .. when all is said and done.

It's no choice at all, in my opinion. People who have never heard of Christianity cannot make the choice, therefore go to hell. And people who have heard of Christianity but have, through logical study, found it self-contradictory, out of date, racist, sexist, and hatemonging; people who have, in fact, used the analytical brain that Christians believe their god gave us have the choice to either deny everything that logic and rationality tells us is true, or burn in agony forever. The choice, for an athiest, would be akin to me coming up to you and saying 'Believe in fairies or I'll kick your teeth in'. It's not a choice, it's a threat. Your merciful, loving god can do no better than threaten people who don't, by ignorance or logic, believe in him.

If he truely was a god, and truely was omnipotent and omniscient then the least he could have done was make sure that the one instruction book that he left us wasn't full of inconsistancies, ambigueties, and bits that no-one can agree are meant to be taken literally or not. The fact that he didn't means that he couldn't so either a) God was not omnipotent b) God was not omniscient c) the bible is not the word/work of God or d) God is a dick who set out to create an ambiguous text knowing full well that some people wouldn't believe in him, so that he'd have someone to burn in hell forever.

Penn

antiskeptic wrote: »

This life is just a precursor to the main event. God is prepared to put up with sin in order to find out what it is you want - with or without him. Once that's done, the main event can commence. No more sin for God to have to put up with. Those in heaven rendered clean and unable to sin. Those in hell bound up and unable to express themselves sinfully.

Well, why can't he just do that? He allows sin to continue to exist, watching people being tortured, robbed, killed, raped, abused etc etc... "No more sin for God to have to put up with"? How much more does he need? What kind of sick voyeur is he?

Right now, why is he allowing people to sin and thereby ruining their chances and condemning them to Hell forever. Why even have Hell at all? Why not make Heaven eternal life without sin, and everyone else is just dead. No Hell, no eternal punishment, just completely wiped from existence. Why CHOOSE to punish people? If he's so loving and forgiving, why not put them out of their misery? Why inflict a punishment on them? And no, those people do not choose to inflict the punishment on themselves by sinning, God chooses to inflict the punishment on the sinners. Why didn't he get rid of all sin? With Noah's ark, where everybody in the world apart from Noah and his family died, shouldn't that have wiped out sin?

Why would GOD do any of this?

Penn

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying I can't know the mind of God?

If he isn't, I am.

kylith

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying I can't know the mind of God?

I thought it was one of the major tenets of the Christian faith that no-one could know the mind of God; ineffability and all that. IIRC, historically the church tends to deal fairly harshly with people, other than the pope, claiming to know the mind of God.

antiskeptic

kylith wrote: »

Someone who's never heard of the Christian god can't make any choice but to be without them and therefore goes to hell to be tortured for something that they had no choice about. Lovely.

God has set things up so that they can make a choice for him.

This is the "God who allows all to come to him" counter, if you want to argue against a different god then move on down the aisle. I'm sure you'll find someone peddling this god you're looking to object to. I'm not however..

He's not particularly omnipotent then, is he? If he was then he could have hell being a bit boring, rather than eternal torment.

He could have Hell less hellish. It would, however, mean that something of his presence would have to be present in Hell. But why would God want to remain in the presence of the stink of sinners for all eternity?

Ugh!

That's ok, apparently Hitler was quite devout and, since he most likely repented on his deathbed, so to speak, he should be up in heaven with JC.

I'm quite sure there will be a few surprises in both heaven and hell.

And people who have heard of Christianity but have, through logical study, found it self-contradictory, out of date, racist, sexist, and hatemonging; people who have, in fact, used the analytical brain that Christians believe their god gave us have the choice to either deny everything that logic and rationality tells us is true, or burn in agony forever. The choice, for an athiest, would be akin to me coming up to you and saying 'Believe in fairies or I'll kick your teeth in'. It's not a choice, it's a threat. Your merciful, loving god can do no better than threaten people who don't, by ignorance or logic, believe in him.

That's how you think the choice is set up. Clearly, all that need be is that the choice is set up otherwise and all this will be bypassed as so much Dawkinsianism

If he truely was a god, and truely was omnipotent and omniscient then the least he could have done was make sure that the one instruction book that he left us wasn't full of inconsistancies, ambigueties, and bits that no-one can agree are meant to be taken literally or not.

Seeing as there is no need to reference the bible in order to make your choice, this is moot.

The fact that he didn't means that he couldn't so either a) God was not omnipotent b) God was not omniscient c) the bible is not the word/work of God or d) God is a dick who set out to create an ambiguous text knowing full well that some people wouldn't believe in him, so that he'd have someone to burn in hell forever.

Or there is something amiss in your abilities to comprehend God's word.
The bible calls this spiritual blindness.

So, how would you know you are spiritually blind?

antiskeptic

kylith wrote: »

I thought it was one of the major tenets of the Christian faith that no-one could know the mind of God; ineffability and all that. IIRC, historically the church tends to deal fairly harshly with people, other than the pope, claiming to know the mind of God.

That's all news to me. Ironically, in this passage he is speaking of the lost and now they just can't get spiritual things. They are blinded as it were. But the found have insight into Gods ways. They see things through his eyes. As it were.

14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%202&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28411d"]d[/URL

But we have the mind of Christ.

antiskeptic

Penn wrote: »

If he isn't, I am.

Let me guess, you scored 7 on Dawkins scale?

kylith

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has set things up so that they can make a choice for him.

This is the "God who allows all to come to him" counter, if you want to argue against a different god then move on down the aisle. I'm sure you'll find someone peddling this god you're looking to object to. I'm not however..

But how can they come to him if they were born in the deepest jungles of Borneo and have never seen a person outside of their own tribe, let alone learned anything of world religions? How can a person 'come to [god]' if they have never heard of him, never heard of Christianity, and don't know that he, for the sake of arguement, exists? HOW???