Atheism ends today

[jeremyp]

I think you are second guessing God's agenda here.

And you're not?

What does God want more. People who love him properly by not being forced or the extinction of those who don't intellectually assent to theism??

The trouble is that the rules (that presumably God created) say that people who don't love God properly (whatever that means) get cast into the pit of Hell for eternity or some metaphorical equivalent.

It's like being on a sinking ship and the lifeboat comes along but the captain refuses to rescue you unless you love him. That's not love, it's obsession and it's the mark of a warped mind. You are a fool to think this god of yours really loves you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you're not?

Not like you.

The trouble is that the rules (that presumably God created) say that people who don't love God properly (whatever that means) get cast into the pit of Hell for eternity or some metaphorical equivalent.

But that would be preferable than spending an eternity with God for someone who rejects God wouldn't it?

It's like being on a sinking ship and the lifeboat comes along but the captain refuses to rescue you unless you love him.

He is the lifebelt, something someone who rejects God would want to divest himself of as soon as possible.

That's not love, it's obsession and it's the mark of a warped mind. You are a fool to think this god of yours really loves you.

You are a fool to reject him. He loves us but is prepared for you not to love him. If you finally reject him then there is nothing he can offer you since you refuse it.
What you want is heaven but without God. There is no heaven without God. What is hell like...going to one's own place is I believe the biblical euphemism.

Nobody though loves God properly so I believe that part of your argumentation is wrong by dint of that.

[Outrider]

I didn't make up the notion.

I didn't give you credit for it, don't worry. The made up notion I was referring to was 'spiritual'...

Only if they thought they were speaking to an audience to which some explanation were owed and whom you considered naturally thick.

Intelligence is a multi-facetted trait - you can, for instance, be logically proficient but still prone to lecturing people about your imaginary friend...

A fine description of Dawkins perhaps?....

If, by 'fine', you mean 'inaccurate'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't give you credit for it, don't worry. The made up notion I was referring to was 'spiritual'...

Intelligence is a multi-facetted trait - you can, for instance, be logically proficient but still prone to lecturing people about your imaginary friend...

If, by 'fine', you mean 'inaccurate'?

O.

I'm sure that in all that is the positive but unjustified
Assertion that God is imaginary.
The atheist Community seems to be turning against Dawkinsanyway vis PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty now that Dawkins has slipped into Alf Garnett mode.

[Outrider]

I'm sure that in all that is the positive but unjustified Assertion that God is imaginary.

I've looked for evidence of a god, I've not found any. If you've got something, offer it, but until then it remains a technically provisional conclusion from the lack of available evidence. It's not proof, but it'll hold until the situation changes.

The atheist Community seems to be turning against Dawkins anyway vis PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty now that Dawkins has slipped into Alf Garnett mode.

Professor Dawkins, and those of his generation, are increasingly marginalised as they fail to adapt their upbringing to modern sensibilities - it doesn't undermine his arguments regarding gods and religion, particularly, but it does limit his ability to influence the modern discourse on the implications of that argument.

That's as it should be - he's not owed a place in the public discourse, and he remains there so long as his arguments have relevance and suitability.

O.

[jeremyp]

Not like you. But that would be preferable than spending an eternity with God for someone who rejects God wouldn't it?

you seem to have forgotten that, if God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.

He is the lifebelt, something someone who rejects God would want to divest himself of as soon as possible.

No he isn't. It's my metaphor.

Your god, you allege, loves us, yet, if we don't love him back, we die. That's not love, it's obsession.

He loves us but is prepared for you not to love him.

Yes he prepared himself by making a rule that everybody who fails to "love him back" must die or be cast into the pit ofd hell or whatever, depending on your denomination. Your god is a monster.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you seem to have forgotten that, if God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
No he isn't. It's my metaphor.

Since there is such thing as a free floating atheism It is a lack of belief in people. Since you have thrown love in the mix and love is never impersonal we move from atheism as a thing and back to where it only exists namely people. God does not want to force people to love him, that is not love.  Letting someone go is love.

Your god, you allege, loves us, yet, if we don't love him back, we die. That's not love, it's obsession.

Obsession would be God stalking someone who has rejected him through eternity. Non obsession would provide nothing....as requested and wished for by the person rejecting God

Yes he prepared himself by making a rule that everybody who fails to "love him back" must die or be cast into the pit ofd hell or whatever, depending on your denomination. Your god is a monster.

NO, If you reject God then you don’t want the things of god and are left with yourself.

[jeremyp]

Obsession would be God stalking someone who has rejected him through eternity.

Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.

NO, If you reject God then you don’t want the things of god and are left with yourself.

He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've looked for evidence of a god, I've not found any. If you've got something, offer it, but until then it remains a technically provisional conclusion from the lack of available evidence. It's not proof, but it'll hold until the situation changes.

I’ve been looking for evidence of a universe that is God free. The trouble is God keeps jumping out in the question of morality, in the question of why something rather than nothing, in the question of contingency, in the question of why the universe is so deeply susceptible to reason and why people who put so much store in science are prepared in an act of utter and shear faith willing to settle without apparent question that the universe “just is”. I’ve also been looking for empirical evidence for materialism etc.

Professor Dawkins, and those of his generation, are increasingly marginalised as they fail to adapt their upbringing to modern sensibilities - it doesn't undermine his arguments regarding gods and religion, particularly, but it does limit his ability to influence the modern discourse on the implications of that argument.

His new atheist arguments have been widely slated as philosophically inept. Your respect for them is I would say “Cultic ”.

That's as it should be - he's not owed a place in the public discourse, and he remains there so long as his arguments have relevance and suitability.

O.

The response of his cult to philosophical criticism has been to rubbish philosophy as a field of study.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.
He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.

Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.
He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.

The fiery pit of hell, dying in one’s own sins, Going to one’s own place, outer darkness, God’s presence...have all been used in Christian context to describe the fate of the unbeliever.  Now the question is Jeremy is your analysis of these descriptions apart from fiery pit of hell. We have your analysis on that. If you don’t answer then i’m Afraid that’s more atheist evasion.

[Outrider]

I’ve been looking for evidence of a universe that is God free.  The trouble is God keeps jumping out in the question of morality, in the question of why something rather than nothing, in the question of contingency, in the question of why the universe is so deeply susceptible to reason and why people who put so much store in science are prepared in an act of utter and shear faith willing to settle without apparent question that the universe “just is”.

Wow, it's the straw giant!

Trying to lever gods into morality doesn't solve anything, it just adds a layer of complexity for no discernible purpose.

Why something rather than nothing - what makes you think there is a 'why'?

The question of why the universe is susceptible to reason is simply that if there were not some degree of stability there would not be a basis for life to examine the stability. Unstable realities may have come and gone innumerable times.

People of science, as well as other people, consider the universe 'just is' because relying on a god that 'just is' falls foul of Ockham's razor - positing a god as the source of reality just pushes the question back from something we can demonstrate (and therefore investigate) onto something we can't demonstrate or investigate.

I’ve also been looking for empirical evidence for materialism etc.

Because it works?

His new atheist arguments have been widely slated as philosophically inept.

No, theologically inept, but then that's only a problem if you consider theology to have validity in the first instance.

Your respect for them is I would say “Cultic ”.

Would you... I'll take that under advisement.

The response of his cult to philosophical criticism has been to rubbish philosophy as a field of study.

I don't doubt that some have. Their arguments will have to stand or fall on their own merits, just as his do.

O.

[jeremyp]

The fiery pit of hell, dying in one’s own sins, Going to one’s own place, outer darkness, God’s presence...have all been used in Christian context to describe the fate of the unbeliever.  Now the question is Jeremy is your analysis of these descriptions apart from fiery pit of hell. We have your analysis on that. If you don’t answer then i’m Afraid that’s more atheist evasion.

No the question is why do you still follow the evil obsessive stalker god for which you can find no evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No the question is why do you still follow the evil obsessive stalker god for which you can find no evidence?

Once again a caricature, strawman god of yours has provided me with any reason not to follow God.

[jeremyp]

Once again a caricature, strawman god of yours has provided me with any reason not to follow God.

The only problem with the caricature is that it is so close to what you actually believe in. You only deny it because it would force you to re-evaluate your worldview to see your god as he really is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only problem with the caricature is that it is so close to what you actually believe in. You only deny it because it would force you to re-evaluate your worldview to see your god as he really is.

No it isn't lets analyse what I believe for instance is the fate of the unbeliever and what you believe.

First of all there is the unbeliever. Your view is that this is some morally pure and innocent lilywhite who's only crime is to reject a beastly God trussed up and cruelly deprived of his wellearned reward of a paradise.

That is not the view of christianity. All have fallen short and all are alienated against God sin affects the soul and rejection of God means rejection of the repair the God man relationship, won by Christ can bring. Paradise is God, Christ is the lifebelt cast off by the finally unbelieving because, they feel they don't need it...fine as I am thank you. But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now.

The Orthodox church has no place called hell for all come intoGod's presence. For the final rejector that is where he doesn't want to be for eternity thus for them God's presence is hell,

Outer darkness? sounds like the opposite of hell but the feelings of it may be tormenting but if you've rejected God.?

Finally dying in one's sins. Not God's sins nor anyone else's sins but one's own sins because we cherish them more than God. In other words the torment will come from and derive from ourselves.

And even many Calvinists agree with this and maintain that the condemned are not tortured by anything other than the presence of God but are not saved. 

[jeremyp]

No it isn't lets analyse what I believe for instance is the fate of the unbeliever and what you believe.

First of all there is the unbeliever. Your view is that this is some morally pure and innocent lilywhite who's only crime is to reject a beastly God trussed up and cruelly deprived of his wellearned reward of a paradise.

Wrong.

That is not the view of christianity. All have fallen short and all are alienated against God sin affects the soul and rejection of God means rejection of the repair the God man relationship, won by Christ can bring. Paradise is God, Christ is the lifebelt cast off by the finally unbelieving because, they feel they don't need it...fine as I am thank you. But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now.

Who decided that Jesus Christ is the "lifebelt"? God did. If God was genuinely concerned about us unbelievers, he'd take steps to show us that the lifebelt is not just a figment of Christians' imagination.

The Orthodox church has no place called hell for all come intoGod's presence. For the final rejector that is where he doesn't want to be for eternity thus for them God's presence is hell,

You Christians really need to get together and present a consistent message. All this bickering and disagreeing you have just makes it look like you are making it up as you go along.

And even many Calvinists agree with this

Do you think this is convincing? You've found an obscure sect, some of whose adherents agree with some parts of your view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong.
Who decided that Jesus Christ is the "lifebelt"? God did. If God was genuinely concerned about us unbelievers, he'd take steps to show us that the lifebelt is not just a figment of Christians' imagination.You Christians really need to get together and present a consistent message. All this bickering and disagreeing you have just makes it look like you are making it up as you go along. Do you think this is convincing? You've found an obscure sect, some of whose adherents agree with some parts of your view.

I feel the central message is clear. In fact Christianity has a greater sense of that than say, non Christians.

[jeremyp]

I feel the central message is clear.

The trouble is that many other Christians feel the central message is clear but they have a different variation compared to you.

In fact Christianity has a greater sense of that than say, non Christians.

What? Clarity? That's really funny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble is that many other Christians feel the central message is clear but they have a different variation compared to you.
What? Clarity? That's really funny.

Example?

[jeremyp]

Example?

There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.

And, of course, you take your cue from them, real fire, bodies that are renewed and burnt over, and reject considering other explanations. I don't think non literalists are much use to you are they.

Then again what if they are right?

[Sebastian Toe]

Then again what if they are right?

...then you would be wrong?

[jeremyp]

And, of course, you take your cue from them,

No I don't take my cue from any Christians because it seems you can't agree about pretty much anything. Is there literal hellfire or not? You say no. Other Christians and Arthur Brown say yes.

I think, if there is a god that created the Universe, it would not invent a religion as half arsed as Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.

I would imagine that includes people who believe that demons and the Devil will be doing the tormenting and those who go there chose to fall in with such a bad lot, That God will be the active tormentor, the torments being just payment for sins committed, that God is passive and because of the nature those who have not repented find his presence tormenting but not those who believe that God torments the innocent.

[Spud]

No I don't take my cue from any Christians because it seems you can't agree about pretty much anything. Is there literal hellfire or not? You say no. Other Christians and Arthur Brown say yes.

I think, if there is a god that created the Universe, it would not invent a religion as half arsed as Christianity.

John 17:3 says, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."
So the thing to do is to let the Bible interpret itself. As Waltzing said, "But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now."
John 17:3 would imply that 'hell' is not knowing God, which would be a sufficient understanding.