# Why do people say that atheists will go to hell?



## MichelleG

This is coming from a christian women like myself. First of all just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they will go to hell because God loves everyone regardless of who they are. We have to start accepting our differences and respecting each other. God gave us free will. The Bible said that we must not judge others. :wink2:


----------



## kurtcobain

Not everyone believes that. 

George McDonald, a famous theologian believed in Christian Universalism, the view that all human beings will ultimately be restored to a right relationship with God in Heaven. 

I want to beleive that God wouldn't discard someone simply because they are not a Christian.


----------



## minimized

They think they can scare us.


----------



## drjohnsn

MichelleG said:


> This is coming from a christian women like myself. First of all just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they will go to hell because God loves everyone regardless of who they are. We have to start accepting our differences and respecting each other. God gave us free will. The Bible said that we must not judge others. :wink2:


Every carrot needs a stick.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

MichelleG said:


> This is coming from a christian women like myself. First of all just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they will go to hell because God loves everyone regardless of who they are. We have to start accepting our differences and respecting each other. God gave us free will. The Bible said that we must not judge others. :wink2:


_As a fellow Christian, allow me to show you the following verses from the Word of God:
*
John 3:18 KJV:* He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

*Romans 10:9 KJV:* That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

*Acts 4:12 KJV:* Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

*Matthew 7:13-14 KJV:* Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the road that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

By default, people are condemned and on the road to the lake of fire because of our sinful nature. The Bible very clearly states that Christ is the only way out because He paid the price for us all and rose from the dead. There are many more verses like these found all over Scripture. It's true that God loves everyone and gave us free will, that's why He has given us the choice to either accept Him or reject Him. But when you reject Christ, God will have no choice but to judge you for your sins and then you will have to pay the price yourself. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and is the only sin that cannot be forgiven. God is a just God, who does not tolerate sin to enter into His kingdom.

About judging others...

*John 7:24 KJV:* Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement.
_


----------



## Milco

Apoc Revolution said:


> *Romans 10:9 KJV:* That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


The bible also tells of Jesus telling his disciples that faith is carried inside oneself and does not need to be publicly proclaimed or confessed.
It contradicts itself in many parts, which is why people end up interpreting it in very different ways.



Apoc Revolution said:


> But when you reject Christ, God will have no choice but to judge you for your sins and then you will have to pay the price yourself. This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and is the only sin that cannot be forgiven. God is a just God, who does not tolerate sin to enter into His kingdom.


If god were real, he'd presumably be perfectly able to choose not to condemn people - he just (supposedly) chooses not to.
Condemning people to eternal suffering for failure to vocally confess faith seems just a tad too harsh to be considered "just".


----------



## mattmc

Belief based on fear is a pretty terrible reason to believe. It's like staying with a romantic partner out of fear that if you try to leave then they'll beat you. But if I say this to most Christians they get upset with me and say I'm working with Satan and need more Jesus.


----------



## minimized

God loves everyone... but everyone is condemned from the womb... the SA life exists... yet God is just...

Don't get it. And there's no use trying to scare me. First of all, I'm not going to be coerced. Second, I've lived this life. I'm not afraid of hell.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

Milco said:


> The bible also tells of Jesus telling his disciples that faith is carried inside oneself and does not need to be publicly proclaimed or confessed.
> It contradicts itself in many parts, which is why people end up interpreting it in very different ways.
> 
> If god were real, he'd presumably be perfectly able to choose not to condemn people - he just (supposedly) chooses not to.
> Condemning people to eternal suffering for failure to vocally confess faith seems just a tad too harsh to be considered "just".


_I don't think God would condemn people who believe in their heart, but don't confess with their mouth. That would certainly not be just because there are people who don't even have the ability to speak. God will judge each of us according to what we can or can't do. If you confess with the mouth, it shows that your faith is genuine. The Bible also says that whoever denies the Lord, the Lord will deny that person before the Father who is in Heaven. Why would any Christian want to do that? So no, I don't think you can lose your salvation over this, but if you are ashamed to admit Jesus is the Lord, He will be ashamed of you as well._


----------



## NathanielWingatePeaslee

Religion works a lot like a chain letter.

Subscribe to our belief system and you get to live forever! Do not subscribe and you either rot in the ground or burn forever! You want your friends to live forever too, don't you? Pass this on to everyone you meet for the rest of your life!

It's explained in more detail here if you're curious.


----------



## gunner21

NathanielWingatePeaslee said:


> Religion works a lot like a chain letter.
> 
> Subscribe to our belief system and you get to live forever! Do not subscribe and you either rot in the ground or burn forever! You want your friends to live forever too, don't you? Pass this on to everyone you meet for the rest of your life!
> 
> It's explained in more detail here if you're curious.


Oh ****! It's N to the W to the P!


----------



## NathanielWingatePeaslee

gunner21 said:


> Oh ****! It's N to the W to the P!


Hey Gunter.


----------



## Haunty

I'm going to Valhalla


----------



## Paul

Religion would be able to play a positive role in the world if everyone believed in a genuinely loving god instead of the erratic sadistic megalomaniac most seem to believe in (while giving incoherent lip service to the "loving" part).


----------



## mattmc

Paul said:


> Religion would be able to play a positive role in the world if everyone believed in a genuinely loving god instead of the erratic sadistic megalomaniac most seem to believe in (while giving incoherent lip service to the "loving" part).


Pretty much what I think to. But instead religious people are scared into believing in a cruel god and then try to reason that he's not cruel despite overwhelming violence and intolerance.


----------



## drjohnsn

mattmc said:


> Pretty much what I think to. But instead religious people are scared into believing in a cruel god and then try to reason that he's not cruel despite overwhelming violence and intolerance.


It's an S&M relationship, but nobody ever told us the safe word.


----------



## ScorchedEarth

minimized said:


> They think they can scare us.


But mainly slow the inorexable decline in religiosity with each generation.


----------



## DiscardYourFear

I was told I would go to hell once.
I just replied "No way! I'm not going back to New Jersey and you can't make me! So there!"


----------



## UnusualSuspect

You can't go to a place that doesn't exist...

...though life itself can be hell sometimes :mum


----------



## DiscardYourFear

AwkwardUglyWeirdo said:


> You can't go to a place that doesn't exist...
> 
> ...though life itself can be hell sometimes :mum


New Jersey does so exist! I've been there! And it is HELL! >


----------



## UnusualSuspect

DiscardYourFear said:


> New Jersey does so exist! I've been there! And it is HELL! >


lol 

But if New Jersey is hell, which city do you consider heaven? 0


----------



## DiscardYourFear

AwkwardUglyWeirdo said:


> lol
> 
> But if New Jersey is hell, which city do you consider heaven? 0


Heaven is where there are no people but the one or two I like. :wink2:


----------



## Noca

God loves everyone... except the long list of people he doesn't haha. 

Honestly I don't care, the threat of hell is just as empty as the threat of a jabberwocky coming to eat me, or the threat of santa clause putting coal in my stockings.


----------



## mca90guitar

Used as a threat and to feel all high and mighty, like the "ill pray for you" , sadly they apparently dont realize atheist do not believe in hell either.

Usually comes from the group that believe we actually do believe there is a God and we just dont like him and like to disobey him and look for attention. 


Honestly, believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't leech its way into the government or infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Kulbert

When you guys wake up to the reality that there is no hell fire anywhere. God is no sadist that he'll burn people for eternity just cause their imperfect flesh caused them to sin. Remember God is love. Fire in the Bible connotes total destruction not destruction for eternity. After all the Bible says the wages sin pays is death. Psalms 37:9-11 also say the wicked will be destroyed. So yes no hell fire only destruction of wicked ones/sinners will take place. That's all so stop fibbing


----------



## TimeUpComeOn

So they get scared and get into religious group.
Very foul play.
Sneaky.


----------



## Zizi

(a christian) I'm pretty sure atheist will get their wish, they will cease to exist. 

MATTHEW 10:28 
Don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.


----------



## theotherone

The answer is so obvious

If u can't help yourself what can I tell u

I'm that one member here who knows


----------



## MondKrabbe

theotherone said:


> The answer is so obvious
> 
> If u can't help yourself what can I tell u
> 
> I'm that one member here who knows


I know for a fact that Zeus doesn't approve of your disbelief in him.


----------



## Cyclonic

As with most other aspects of organized religion, I just see it as another fear-mongering tool to keep the number of members up and the $$$$ flowing, who can blame them either? Fear is a great motivator and an effective way to control people. Not to mention it's a *cheap and cruel recruiting tactic*. It pains me to see it used, unfortunately even here, to make people feel bad about themselves.

I found the whole idea of eternal punishment to be illogical anyway and it was a major reason why I began to lose my faith in the first place.

It's ludicrous to believe that anyone deserves infinite punishment for thoughts alone in a finite life. Am I to believe 70-80 years is enough time to figure your beliefs out? Condemning somebody for thoughts in such a short time-frame feels unjust to me.

If god(s) is/are truly fair and just, beliefs shouldn't matter. If belief and worship are so important to such god(s), then I would rather spend eternity in Hell than support such petty and tyrannical beings.


----------



## Noca

Zizi said:


> (a christian) I'm pretty sure atheist will get their wish, they will cease to exist.
> 
> MATTHEW 10:28
> Don't be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.


What does it matter what I wish for? If I wish for a Lamborghini Aventador when I die, will I get that too? I just never understood this "I wish so and so would happen when I die" or "I wish I will go to so and so paradise when I die" as if wishful thinking will change anything.

If I get into a severe car crash and am left brain damaged, where is my soul? I mean if I am a vegetable, does that mean my soul is a vegetable too? If not it must mean my soul is seperate from my conciousness, then whose soul is it? How is that me? Or is there a 2nd conciousness that I have no awareness of or access or control over the entire time I am alive? If so, who cares if it burns in hell, the only conciousness I am concerned about is the one who is typing this post.


----------



## Zizi

Noca said:


> What does it matter what I wish for? If I wish for a Lamborghini Aventador when I die, will I get that too? I just never understood this "I wish so and so would happen when I die" or "I wish I will go to so and so paradise when I die" as if wishful thinking will change anything.
> 
> If I get into a severe car crash and am left brain damaged, where is my soul? I mean if I am a vegetable, does that mean my soul is a vegetable too? If not it must mean my soul is seperate from my conciousness, then whose soul is it? How is that me? Or is there a 2nd conciousness that I have no awareness of or access or control over the entire time I am alive? If so, who cares if it burns in hell, the only conciousness I am concerned about is the one who is typing this post.


Don't most, if not all, atheist believe that when they die it all ends for them, and they are fine with knowing that, and some, if not many, even like that? That's why I said "their wish".

I have no idea what you're trying to say at the second paragraph. I guess 'cause your thought of soul/consciousness is different from mine. 
My soul is me, you are a soul with a body, that's what I believe.


----------



## jsgt

> *Why do people say that atheists will go to hell? *




Most people are too wrapped up in their own beliefs that they start to lose sight of the very message they're supporting. So...they attack anything that they think is a threat to their religion.


----------



## livetolovetolive

Apoc Revolution said:


> _I don't think God would condemn people who believe in their heart, but don't confess with their mouth. That would certainly not be just because there are people who don't even have the ability to speak. God will judge each of us according to what we can or can't do. If you confess with the mouth, it shows that your faith is genuine. The Bible also says that whoever denies the Lord, the Lord will deny that person before the Father who is in Heaven. Why would any Christian want to do that? So no, I don't think you can lose your salvation over this, but if you are ashamed to admit Jesus is the Lord, He will be ashamed of you as well._


I'm not a scholar but I just can't wrap my mind around this.

How can I believe that Jesus is God? The only evidence is reinterpreted 2000 year old texts. And even if this were all true, why is it necessary to believe in Jesus as God to believe in God? Why can't people take the good teachings of the religion while also believing God and that be enough?

Why do we need to believe that Jesus was God to get at God? What's the point? Why can't we go straight to the source?

I personally believe in a creator/God. I believe in such a thing as virtue which can be stenciled out using empathy and logic, which I believe brings us closer to God. Why should I have to believe an outrageous story that Jesus is God or otherwise be condemned? I mean based on the writings it is clear that Jesus was the embodiment of virtue, and that's great. Maybe he is an example of how close to God people can become... anyone with the will and the heart... but I can't believe the magic, and I can't believe that people who question the magical elements for reason of science are condemned.

I believe religion serves the time it exists in, some teachings may be eternal, but much becomes irrelevant as societies change; ie. sexism. I believe Christianity can still be applied today and perhaps forever as most of it is based on timeless virtue, but it should not be followed blindly. Some of it must be questioned for compassion at least.


----------



## mjkittredge

Way too many hardcore Christians believe that anyone and everyone who doesn't believe Christ died for our sins is going to hell. I've talked with several people about this. Asked them "Even like some Chinese kid that dies, is going to hell because their parents didn't raise them religious?"

Those type of people are scary.

I don't believe in heaven or hell or gods any more than I believe in ghosts or bigfoot or the loch ness monster. It's all fanciful nonsense, an amusing fantasy from mankinds imagination. That's developed into a global cult that causes so much war and death and backwards social mentalities.


----------



## mjkittredge

Zizi said:


> (a christian) I'm pretty sure atheist will get their wish, they will cease to exist.
> 
> MATTHEW 10:28
> Don't be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell.


So sad to see young minds indoctrinated with this mythological nonsense.

Hail Zeus, and Horus too. If Romans had adopted a different religion we'd worship them today instead. That would probably be better, they weren't twisted mass murderers like the evil Christian god.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

livetolovetolive said:


> I'm not a scholar but I just can't wrap my mind around this.
> 
> How can I believe that Jesus is God? The only evidence is reinterpreted 2000 year old texts. And even if this were all true, why is it necessary to believe in Jesus as God to believe in God? Why can't people take the good teachings of the religion while also believing God and that be enough?
> 
> Why do we need to believe that Jesus was God to get at God? What's the point? Why can't we go straight to the source?
> 
> I personally believe in a creator/God. I believe in such a thing as virtue which can be stenciled out using empathy and logic, which I believe brings us closer to God. Why should I have to believe an outrageous story that Jesus is God or otherwise be condemned? I mean based on the writings it is clear that Jesus was the embodiment of virtue, and that's great. Maybe he is an example of how close to God people can become... anyone with the will and the heart... but I can't believe the magic, and I can't believe that people who question the magical elements for reason of science are condemned.
> 
> I believe religion serves the time it exists in, some teachings may be eternal, but much becomes irrelevant as societies change; ie. sexism. I believe Christianity can still be applied today and perhaps forever as most of it is based on timeless virtue, but it should not be followed blindly. Some of it must be questioned for compassion at least.


_If I understand the scriptures correctly, Jesus is called the Word. Not only was He with God from the very beginning, He IS God (John 1:1-5). God has three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is absolutely necessary to believe in Jesus as the Son of God to be saved. God sent His Son (Jesus) to the world in the likeness of man to pay the penalty for everyone's sins so that they may be saved. You get saved by Christ, and born again by the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Only through Him can you get to the source. He isn't called the King of kings and the Lord of lords for nothing.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ is condemned already, He is the only way out. It is always good to question things, I do it myself. I have my own issues with a few verses in particular. But as long as you keep your eyes on the Lord and not turn away from Him completely, you shouldn't lose your salvation.
_


----------



## theotherone

MondKrabbe said:


> I know for a fact that Zeus doesn't approve of your disbelief in him.


Zeus isn't wise


----------



## Farideh

That's not Christ like. Telling someone they're going to hell. I hear this comment all the time when people argue. I just look at them like they just lost their mind because they did. If someone ever said that to me, I would tell them to take a good look at themselves because the Lord wouldn't bless them for saying that to me. LMAO


----------



## eukz




----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ is condemned already, He is the only way out. It is always good to question things, I do it myself. I have my own issues with a few verses in particular. But as long as you keep your eyes on the Lord and not turn away from Him completely, you shouldn't lose your salvation.


What an abhorrent thing to say.

That'a akin to going around telling people they are going to be tortured unless they agree with you.

Shame on you and your vile claims.


----------



## MondKrabbe

theotherone said:


> Zeus isn't wise


Define wise.


----------



## longtimenolove

drjohnsn said:


> It's an S&M relationship, but nobody ever told us the safe word.


:whip>

Haha omg this is so true.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> What an abhorrent thing to say.
> 
> That'a akin to going around telling people they are going to be tortured unless they agree with you.
> 
> Shame on you and your vile claims.


_These are my beliefs, I have the right to share them with other people just like non-believers. I bet if an atheist would go around telling people they are insignificant and that they will return to nothingness after death, you wouldn't say anything just because you agree with them.

I already told you that I don't care what you think of me. It's quite sad to see you attacking people just to make yourself feel better._


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> These are my beliefs, I have the right to share them with other people just like non-believers.


Nobody is saying you don't. Don't think others don't have the right to criticise what you say though.



> I bet if an atheist would go around telling people they are insignificant and that they will return to nothingness after death, you wouldn't say anything just because you agree with them.


Telling people to be humble and that they shouldn't think they are objectively better than anyone else or expect some 'god given' right to an afterlife and eternal happinesses is vastly different from telling people they are born sinners/evil and will be tortured for eternity unless they agree with you.

It's very telling that you don't realise the difference.



> I already told you that I don't care what you think of me.


So? That's not going to stop me criticising certain things you state.



> It's quite sad to see you attacking people just to make yourself feel better.


I already feel great thanks. My criticising of such claims is just a valid thing to do.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> Nobody is saying you don't. Don't think others don't have the right to criticise what you say though.


_There's a difference between criticising and attacking. At least admit you did the latter in this case._



ugh1979 said:


> Telling people to be humble and that they shouldn't think they are objectively better than anyone else or expect some 'god given' right to an afterlife and eternal happinesses is vastly different from telling people they are born sinners/evil and will be tortured for eternity unless they agree with you.
> 
> It's very telling that you don't realise the difference.


_It's clear that you do not understand what Christianity is about. Have you heard of the Pharisees? They were people who acted like they were better than others, even though they were sinners themselves. Jesus criticised them rather than people who realised they were just as bad as anyone else. It would be foolish of me to think I am better than others just because I'm saved. And people don't have to agree, I'm just trying to warn them if I get the chance. If they truly don't believe in life after death, they should have nothing to worry about. It says a lot about atheists who get mad over such things, it's like they're not even sure of their own beliefs._



ugh1979 said:


> So? That's not going to stop me criticising certain things you state.


_Fine, but you can debate without having to resort to personal insults._



ugh1979 said:


> I already feel great thanks. My criticising of such claims is just a valid thing to do.


_Good for you._


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> There's a difference between criticising and attacking. At least admit you did the latter in this case.


You are confused. I clearly said I'm free to criticise you. That said, can you explain what you think the difference is between attacking and criticising is?



> It's clear that you do not understand what Christianity is about. Have you heard of the Pharisees? They were people who acted like they were better than others, even though they were sinners themselves. Jesus criticised them rather than people who realised they were just as bad as anyone else. It would be foolish of me to think I am better than others just because I'm saved.


You are very naive if you think many religious people don't think of themselves as 'special' or 'chosen' and see themselves as a superior species in the grand scheme of things, hence why they often claim they know the 'truth' that gives them the method and access to eternal happiness in an afterlife rather than eternal torture in 'hell' or no afterlife.

You have made such claims yourself in inferring that you are objectively significant. That's just arrogant hubris.



> And people don't have to agree, I'm just trying to warn them if I get the chance.


You don't seem to realise the abhorrence of your warnings. It's akin to telling a child that if they don't agree with you then you will murder their parents and hurt them.

I'm simply claiming nothing will happen after they die regardless of if someone believes what you claim or not. There's nothing bad about that. It's the rational intellectually honest position.



> If they truly don't believe in life after death, they should have nothing to worry about.


Believe me the vast majority of atheists don't, and are as worried about not adhering to your such beliefs as you are to not adhering to ancient Egyptian doctrine.



> It says a lot about atheists who get mad over such things, it's like they're not even sure of their own beliefs.


No it says certain atheists don't let such abhorrent claims go unchallenged, and to the contrary it infers they are confident of their beliefs. It takes far more uncertainty and lack of confidence to not speak out.



> Fine, but you can debate without having to resort to personal insults.


Can you clarify what you think I have said that is a personal insult? The fact some people take any criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. If you check the forum rules you will see that people with such thin skin shouldn't really be participating in this forum.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> You are confused. I clearly said I'm free to criticise you. That said, can you explain what you think the difference is between attacking and criticising is?


_Your first post was obviously attacking because you said "shame on you", making it personal. An example of the difference between criticising and attacking:

- "That is a foolish thing to say" (criticising) Showing that you dislike the claim a person said, rather than the person themself.

- "You are a fool for saying that" (attacking) Showing that you dislike the person rather than their claim.
_ 


ugh1979 said:


> You are very naive if you think many religious people don't think of themselves as 'special' or 'chosen' and see themselves as a superior species in the grand scheme of things, hence why they often claim they know the 'truth' that gives them the method and access to eternal happiness in an afterlife rather than eternal torture in 'hell' or no afterlife.
> 
> You have made such claims yourself in inferring that you are objectively significant. That's just arrogant hubris.


_Of course there are people who think they are superior, that's why I talked about the Pharisees. They were believers who did exactly that, and Jesus didn't like that. However, there is nothing wrong with believing you have found the Truth and wanting to share it with others. I and many other believers would want to see as many people saved as possible. Why should I be arrogant for believing we humans have a purpose and that there is more to life? It's simply a belief. By the way, I have doubts if suffering in Hell would be eternal. There are scriptures suggesting that people will suffer for a time, but that they will be completely destroyed in the end; gone._



ugh1979 said:


> You don't seem to realise the abhorrence of your warnings. It's akin to telling a child that if they don't agree with you then you will murder their parents and hurt them.
> 
> I'm simply claiming nothing will happen after they die regardless of if someone believes what you claim or not. There's nothing bad about that. It's the rational intellectually honest position.


_Ridiculous. So you're comparing me with a murderer now, good to know. That says a lot about you. I would never want to hurt someone for not agreeing with me, that is absurd.

Here we go again, claiming you're intellectually superior. You cannot know for certain what will happen after death unless you experience it, that is why it's called faith. You believing nothing will happen after death IS faith. That is why Romans 1:20 says people will have no excuse for not believing in Christ. They made the decision not to and don't care about getting to know God.
_ 


ugh1979 said:


> Believe me the vast majority of atheists don't, and are as worried about not adhering to your such beliefs as you are to not adhering to ancient Egyptian doctrine.


_If they worry so much, then it's because they must be terrified for being wrong and getting sent to the lake of fire. If I am wrong and there is no God, I will stop existing and suffering would not be an option. If I am wrong and one of the other religions is true (which I don't believe), then at least I'm aware that it would be my fault for making the decision not to believe. I want to serve Christ, no one else. I'm convinced the Bible is the Word of God, hence why I don't worry._



ugh1979 said:


> No it says certain atheists don't let such abhorrent claims go unchallenged, and to the contrary it infers they are confident of their beliefs. It takes far more uncertainty and lack of confidence to not speak out.


_They will appear a lot more confident if they don't get mad and act like a 12 year old, which a certain user on here is notorious for doing. It makes it harder to take them seriously._



ugh1979 said:


> Can you clarify what you think I have said that is a personal insult? The fact some people take any criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. If you check the forum rules you will see that people with such thin skin shouldn't really be participating in this forum.


_I answered that question in the first part of this reply. You're free to criticise as much as you want, but there's no need in making this personal and claiming you're intellectualy honest as if believers are stupid. If I had thin skin, I would actually be offended by what you said. But I'm not, and just want to point out the errors in your posts._


----------



## drjohnsn

Apoc Revolution said:


> _If they worry so much, then it's because they must be terrified for being wrong and getting sent to the lake of fire. If I am wrong and there is no God, I will stop existing and suffering would not be an option. If I am wrong and one of the other religions is true (which I don't believe), then at least I'm aware that it would be my fault for making the decision not to believe. I want to serve Christ, no one else. I'm convinced the Bible is the Word of God, hence why I don't worry._


So let's say you're wrong, you die, and figure out that the great Jumbawumba has decreed that your filthy, unbelieving butt should be eternally tormented by being eaten forever by voracious fanged pancakes.

You're cool with that because you made the decision yourself - that there is no great Jumbawumba? It doesn't strike you as the least bit unfair that the great Jumbawumba never gave you any evidence of his existence?


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> Your first post was obviously attacking because you said "shame on you", making it personal. An example of the difference between criticising and attacking:
> 
> - "That is a foolish thing to say" (criticising) Showing that you dislike the claim a person said, rather than the person themself.
> 
> - "You are a fool for saying that" (attacking) Showing that you dislike the person rather than their claim.


You quoted me saying I had admitted to attacking your your beliefs, when I clearly said in the quote I was criticising your beliefs. At least admit you have made a mistake to say I have admitted attacking them when I clearly said I was criticising them.

I don't regard saying a belief is shameful as an attack. I ensure not to make crude statements such as calling people stupid of foolish which I agree are personal attacks. I don't have anything against you per se, just what you are saying here. People can be smart in some areas and ignorant in others. I don't judge someone's personal character based on one thing they say, or even on a few things they say one one specific subject. Who know, maybe we agree on many subjects?



> Of course there are people who think they are superior, that's why I talked about the Pharisees. They were believers who did exactly that, and Jesus didn't like that. However, there is nothing wrong with believing you have found the Truth and wanting to share it with others. I and many other believers would want to see as many people saved as possible.


You don't seem to understand that by claiming to know you have the 'truth' and that people need to agree with you to avoid the hell of your doctrine you are claiming superiority.



> Why should I be arrogant for believing we humans have a purpose and that there is more to life? It's simply a belief.


Because it's simply arrogant due to being unsubstantiated. You're making a very bold claim and proclaiming you (and humankind) have some special importance and significance, but it's made without a leg to stand on.



> By the way, I have doubts if suffering in Hell would be eternal. There are scriptures suggesting that people will suffer for a time, but that they will be completely destroyed in the end; gone.


Oh how pleasant of you. Just temporal torture for the non-conformers. :roll



> Ridiculous. So you're comparing me with a murderer now, good to know. That says a lot about you. I would never want to hurt someone for not agreeing with me, that is absurd.


You are getting confused again. Me drawing parallels with other abhorrent claims doesn't mean I'm saying you believe those other abhorrent claims. I'm saying they are akin to them in the abhorrence, not their actuality. I don't doubt you that you don't want to hurt anyone, but you claim that they will come to harm unless they agree with you. Not by your hand but by the alleged judgemental actions of you deity.

It's like saying, "believe what I believe or my father will torture you". You are outsourcing the threat.



> Here we go again, claiming you're intellectually superior. You cannot know for certain what will happen after death unless you experience it, that is why it's called faith. You believing nothing will happen after death IS faith. That is why Romans 1:20 says people will have no excuse for not believing in Christ. They made the decision not to and don't care about getting to know God.


I say it for exactly the reason that we don't know what happens after death, which is why I claim nothing happens, since there is no evidence anything happens. You are making a Pascal's Wager fallacy to say it's better to believe in your god just in case it exists. There is no rational reason to make claim to a belief in your particular god among the thousands mankind has claimed to exist 'just in case' it's true. In the absence of evidence/probability, the only rational/intellectually honest position is to believe no gods exist.



> If they worry so much, then it's because they must be terrified for being wrong and getting sent to the lake of fire. If I am wrong and there is no God, I will stop existing and suffering would not be an option. If I am wrong and one of the other religions is true (which I don't believe), then at least I'm aware that it would be my fault for making the decision not to believe. I want to serve Christ, no one else. I'm convinced the Bible is the Word of God, hence why I don't worry.


I already told you the vast majority don't worry. Your claims are a generic as any other religions. Again you are making Pascal's Wager fallacies. Why aren't you a Muslim just in case that is the one true religion for example? It's got just as much 'claim to credence' as your religion. Why don't you fear Allah's wrath?



> They will appear a lot more confident if they don't get mad and act like a 12 year old, which a certain user on here is notorious for doing. It makes it harder to take them seriously.


I agree some people will act in juvenile manners, but I also see religious faith as a juvenile mentality. It's not in line with modern advanced cultures for example. The most progressive societies have largely abandoned such concepts being the usual world-view. (Scandinavian, most of the rest of Europe, and many other developed countries for example)



> I answered that question in the first part of this reply. You're free to criticise as much as you want, but there's no need in making this personal and claiming you're intellectualy honest as if believers are stupid.


I wouldn't necessary equate intellectual honesty with stupidity. There are all sorts of cognitive reasons why people are intellectual dishonest, and it can be very compartmentalised. An otherwise respected intellectual can hold bizarre intellectually dishonest views due to certain cognitive biases. To say they are inherently stupid for example would be unjustified for reasons I've already explained.



> If I had thin skin, I would actually be offended by what you said. But I'm not, and just want to point out the errors in your posts.


So you're say I'm making insults that aren't offensive to you? Can you give me an example of non-offensive insult I've made to you?

I'm happy for you to try and point out the errors in my posts, but of course I'm going to keep showing everyone why they aren't errors and that it's you who is wrong.


----------



## ugh1979

drjohnsn said:


> So let's say you're wrong, you die, and figure out that the great Jumbawumba has decreed that your filthy, unbelieving butt should be eternally tormented by being eaten forever by voracious fanged pancakes.
> 
> You're cool with that because you made the decision yourself - that there is no great Jumbawumba? It doesn't strike you as the least bit unfair that the great Jumbawumba never gave you any evidence of his existence?


Exactly. You're rightfully inferring Pascal's Wager issues. 

Someone posted this earlier but i'll post it again as it sums up the ludicrously of the claim:










We (mankind in general) have a shameful history of centuries of this kind of belief and much semi-related oppression/genocide, especially in Africa and and South America at the hands of Christianity. Of course Islam is still at it in various backwards places, but that's another thread.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

drjohnsn said:


> So let's say you're wrong, you die, and figure out that the great Jumbawumba has decreed that your filthy, unbelieving butt should be eternally tormented by being eaten forever by voracious fanged pancakes.
> 
> You're cool with that because you made the decision yourself - that there is no great Jumbawumba? It doesn't strike you as the least bit unfair that the great Jumbawumba never gave you any evidence of his existence?


_Well, I would want to know what religion this 'Jumbawumba' would come from. If there is no religion which describes this god, then it would be unfair because how can you follow someone no one has even heard of? I believe Creation is evidence of a Creator, but there are many religions all claiming their god is the right one. Only one can be true. The Bible seems to be historically accurate and the prophecies described in it are being fulfilled, giving me reason to believe it. Besides, I've never heard of any other religion where God sacrifices Himself for humanity so that people may be saved. To me, that is the definition of Love. If that ends up being wrong, then I wouldn't want to serve a different god anyway._


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

kurtcobain said:


> Not everyone believes that.
> 
> I want to beleive that God wouldn't discard someone simply because they are not a Christian.


That's another biblical contradiction. Because gawd apparently didn't like what he was seeing in the world - according to this my, or fiction. So he decided to "start over", and yes, he "discarded everyone" in a flood that wasn't following his own beliefs.

now how childish is that.

Now, we have the movie "Noah"..with Russel Crowe of all people... and we all Noah wasn't white.

Neither was Moses played by Christian Bale..

seriously? I'm beginning to believe that it wasn't a scripture that was written at all.

I think folks were written down a bunch of screenplays or morality stories..


----------



## minimized

Well, I wouldn't want to serve a god who would do such terrible things or be such an incompetent creator that he had to "save" me from myself...

I'm curious - why would such a god provide no proof and yet let these terrible things happen that lead to atheism? It seems like you could skip the whole questioning and suffering portion of the exam. Or is this supposed to be some sort of test?

Prophecies, huh... I believe the legitimacy of the Bible's vagueness as much as I believe Nostradamus's.

I'm not worried at all about god or hell or whatnot. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> Well, I would want to know what religion this 'Jumbawumba' would come from. If there is no religion which describes this god, then it would be unfair because how can you follow someone no one has even heard of?


So why does your religion damn those who have never heard of your religion to hell and brand them heretics?



> I believe Creation is evidence of a Creator,


That's a circular logic fallacy, never mind being as intellectually shallow as a puddle in the street.



> but there are many religions all claiming their god is the right one. Only one can be true. The Bible seems to be historically accurate and the prophecies described in it are being fulfilled, giving me reason to believe it.


As you say, only one can be right, since they contradict each other. When you understand why you reject other religions doctrine you will understand why people like me reject yours, as they are all just as unsubstantiated. Most religions make the same claims yours does in reference to prophecies being fulfilled and the accuracy of their doctrine. All religious apologists just cherry pick and express immense intellectual dishonesty in doing so.  Look at the number of historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdities, never mind all the other abhorrent archaic crap the bible spouts. Scriptures like the Qu'ran are just as erroneous.



> Besides, I've never heard of any other religion where God sacrifices Himself for humanity so that people may be saved. To me, that is the definition of Love. If that ends up being wrong, then I wouldn't want to serve a different god anyway.


You conveniently ignore the fact that 'he' threatens eternal torture for those that don't accept 'his' salvation. It's 'love' with abhorrent criteria. The god of your doctrine is a terrible being, not worthy of any respect even if it is real. That much is obvious from your own scripture.


----------



## ugh1979

thinkstoomuch101 said:


> That's another biblical contradiction. Because gawd apparently didn't like what he was seeing in the world - according to this my, or fiction. So he decided to "start over", and yes, he "discarded everyone" in a flood that wasn't following his own beliefs.
> 
> now how childish is that.
> 
> Now, we have the movie "Noah"..with Russel Crowe of all people... and we all Noah wasn't white.
> 
> Neither was Moses played by Christian Bale..
> 
> seriously? I'm beginning to believe that it wasn't a scripture that was written at all.
> 
> I think folks were written down a bunch of screenplays or morality stories..


While I know you are just being facetious, I truly believe most Christians see god/jesus as a white man, rather than of the Middle Eastern ethnicity that if the religion is true they/he clearly is.

A classic example of religious white supremacy. :roll


----------



## drjohnsn

Apoc Revolution said:


> _Well, I would want to know what religion this 'Jumbawumba' would come from. If there is no religion which describes this god, then it would be unfair because how can you follow someone no one has even heard of? I believe Creation is evidence of a Creator, but there are many religions all claiming their god is the right one. Only one can be true. The Bible seems to be historically accurate and the prophecies described in it are being fulfilled, giving me reason to believe it. Besides, I've never heard of any other religion where God sacrifices Himself for humanity so that people may be saved. To me, that is the definition of Love. If that ends up being wrong, then I wouldn't want to serve a different god anyway._


The fact that I made it up is irrelevant. Your religion condemns people who are ignorant of the so-called truth, so this hypothetical deity does not need to exist for the point to be made - you are ignorant of his existence.

Creation truly is evidence of a creator ... because the definition is circular. What you're trying to say is that you believe what you see about you was created, and therefore there must be something that did so. You stated it as though the uncertainty was in the creator, but the question, in fact, lies in whether or not creation is a thing.

Historical events are not evidence that interweaved fantastical information is factual. If this were so, Harry Potter would be a real eye opener.

And seriously ... your religion's deity sacrificing himself to save you from your religion's damnation(1)? That's compelling evidence? Ok, get this: Jumbawumba cut off his nuts in exchange for the salvation of each and every soul in the world, and that's why they need salvation, because he's so angry at those who don't believe in him. See? So why don't you get behind that? Because it is predicated on your already subscribing to the religion. If you don't, it just sounds stupid(2).

1. Biblical sacrifice generally requires, well, sacrifice. I don't know if you noticed, but not only is your god still existing in your dogma, but so is the sacrificed version of himself.
2. Unless you are in a bad place, self-hating and vulnerable.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> You quoted me saying I had admitted to attacking your your beliefs, when I clearly said in the quote I was criticising your beliefs. At least admit you have made a mistake to say I have admitted attacking them when I clearly said I was criticising them.


_Regarding the subject of critising VS attacking, I said "At least admit you did the latter in this case". I didn't say you had admitted to it yourself, I would have used different words if that would be the case. You're the one making the mistake here._



ugh1979 said:


> I don't regard saying a belief is shameful as an attack. I ensure not to make crude statements such as calling people stupid of foolish which I agree are personal attacks. I don't have anything against you per se, just what you are saying here. People can be smart in some areas and ignorant in others. I don't judge someone's personal character based on one thing they say, or even on a few things they say one one specific subject. Who know, maybe we agree on many subjects?


_Correct, saying a belief is shameful is not an attack because it focuses on the claim rather than the person. But you said "shame on you" which focuses on the person (me). That's why I gave you those examples to show the difference. You may not have anything against me, but it does come across that way, do you realise that?_



ugh1979 said:


> You don't seem to understand that by claiming to know you have the 'truth' and that people need to agree with you to avoid the hell of your doctrine you are claiming superiority.


_Scientists claim to know things they've never personally experienced, but oh wait, it doesn't matter because you agree with them... I do believe I have found the Truth, but I do not claim superiority because I could be wrong._



ugh1979 said:


> Because it's simply arrogant due to being unsubstantiated. You're making a very bold claim and proclaiming you (and humankind) have some special importance and significance, but it's made without a leg to stand on.


_You're doing the exact same thing by claiming there is no life after death. We both cannot be 100% sure what will happen. I believe life in general has significance, not just mankind. If I would be arrogant, I would claim humans are more important than anything else._



ugh1979 said:


> You are getting confused again. Me drawing parallels with other abhorrent claims doesn't mean I'm saying you believe those other abhorrent claims. I'm saying they are akin to them in the abhorrence, not their actuality. I don't doubt you that you don't want to hurt anyone, but you claim that they will come to harm unless they agree with you. Not by your hand but by the alleged judgemental actions of you deity.
> 
> It's like saying, "believe what I believe or my father will torture you". You are outsourcing the threat.


_It is not my job to judge humanity, that is God's decision. I don't like the thought of people suffering in Hell, but there is a price that has to be paid for sin. God is just. Do you think murderers, thieves, rapists, etc who never get caught in life would be free of judgment? Those are some of the graver sins, but God hates all sin, even the minor ones. Everyone will be held accountable for their actions, even believers. God only sees people who believe in His Son as righteous._



ugh1979 said:


> I say it for exactly the reason that we don't know what happens after death, which is why I claim nothing happens, since there is no evidence anything happens. You are making a Pascal's Wager fallacy to say it's better to believe in your god just in case it exists. There is no rational reason to make claim to a belief in your particular god among the thousands mankind has claimed to exist 'just in case' it's true. In the absence of evidence/probability, the only rational/intellectually honest position is to believe no gods exist.


_Just because there is no evidence (yet), doesn't mean it can't be true. Out of all those religions, only one can be true. Many people are deceived. That is why the Bible says the road to destruction is wide where many shall go, and the way to life is narrow where few shall go._



ugh1979 said:


> I already told you the vast majority don't worry. Your claims are a generic as any other religions. Again you are making Pascal's Wager fallacies. Why aren't you a Muslim just in case that is the one true religion for example? It's got just as much 'claim to credence' as your religion. Why don't you fear Allah's wrath?


_Strange, when I said atheists should have nothing to worry about, you said they don't; implying that the vast majority do worry. So which one is it? I'm not a Muslim because the Qu'ran condones killing unbelievers. It is sexist because women are treated as property. It is a works based salvation, where if you don't pray X amount of times or do this or that, you're in danger of losing your salvation. Getting 72 virgins in Heaven is also a joke because they would be slaves. Apparently Muhammed married young children, does that sound like being a good example to you? Like I said, I do not want to serve anyone but Christ, even if I would end up being wrong._



ugh1979 said:


> I agree some people will act in juvenile manners, but I also see religious faith as a juvenile mentality. It's not in line with modern advanced cultures for example. The most progressive societies have largely abandoned such concepts being the usual world-view. (Scandinavian, most of the rest of Europe, and many other developed countries for example)


_It's not in line with modern advanced cultures, aka science? I already told you that older things don't necessarily have to be false._



ugh1979 said:


> I wouldn't necessary equate intellectual honesty with stupidity. There are all sorts of cognitive reasons why people are intellectual dishonest, and it can be very compartmentalised. An otherwise respected intellectual can hold bizarre intellectually dishonest views due to certain cognitive biases. To say they are inherently stupid for example would be unjustified for reasons I've already explained.


_You keep saying my beliefs are arrogant, but by claiming only your views are intellectually honest is arrogance as well._



ugh1979 said:


> So you're say I'm making insults that aren't offensive to you? Can you give me an example of non-offensive insult I've made to you?
> 
> I'm happy for you to try and point out the errors in my posts, but of course I'm going to keep showing everyone why they aren't errors and that it's you who is wrong.


_
When you said "shame on you". I have already explained why at the top of this post.

Oh, but I'm not the only one who is wrong. It would be great if you would admit you are wrong as well.
_


----------



## ugh1979

drjohnsn said:


> Historical events are not evidence that interweaved fantastical information is factual. If this were so, Harry Potter would be a real eye opener.


Exactly. Just because certain literature references real people and places doesn't qualify it as anywhere near factual. I don't think many religious understand that. I guess it's in line with their typical cherry picking mindset. They read about an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh who credibly evidently did exist and think that legitimises the rest of their scripture for example, or some absurd ambiguous inane fulfilled 'prophecy' such as 'people knowing more than they did in the past' as a sign their religion must be right, both while ignoring all the vast amounts of content that is empirically wrong with their doctrine.

I'm not sure how many Muslim's you have debated with, but the few that show up here and entered into debate with me have been shockingly convinced that the Qu'ran is absolutely infallible, and attempt laughable apologetics at any of it's thousands of fallacies. It's on a level that is scary stuff that is rarely found in Christian's in this day and age, most of whom are happy to admit much of their doctrine is wrong in the literal sense or the classic apologist get out clause, a 'metaphor' (for whatever they want it to mean). :roll



> And seriously ... your religion's deity sacrificing himself to save you from your religion's damnation(1)? That's compelling evidence? Ok, get this: Jumbawumba cut off his nuts in exchange for the salvation of each and every soul in the world, and that's why they need salvation, because he's so angry at those who don't believe in him. See? So why don't you get behind that? Because it is predicated on your already subscribing to the religion. If you don't, it just sounds stupid(2).
> 
> 1. Biblical sacrifice generally requires, well, sacrifice. I don't know if you noticed, but not only is your god still existing in your dogma, but so is the sacrificed version of himself.
> 2. Unless you are in a bad place, self-hating and vulnerable.


Indeed. The mentality that is required to worship something that supposedly tells you that you are a born sinner and requires sacrifice of many of arguably natural and normal life's pleasures is a bizarrely self defeating/self hating mindset. Never mind oppressive and anti-equality/liberal, it's often anti-humanity.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

drjohnsn said:


> The fact that I made it up is irrelevant. Your religion condemns people who are ignorant of the so-called truth, so this hypothetical deity does not need to exist for the point to be made - you are ignorant of his existence.
> 
> Creation truly is evidence of a creator ... because the definition is circular. What you're trying to say is that you believe what you see about you was created, and therefore there must be something that did so. You stated it as though the uncertainty was in the creator, but the question, in fact, lies in whether or not creation is a thing.
> 
> Historical events are not evidence that interweaved fantastical information is factual. If this were so, Harry Potter would be a real eye opener.
> 
> And seriously ... your religion's deity sacrificing himself to save you from your religion's damnation(1)? That's compelling evidence? Ok, get this: Jumbawumba cut off his nuts in exchange for the salvation of each and every soul in the world, and that's why they need salvation, because he's so angry at those who don't believe in him. See? So why don't you get behind that? Because it is predicated on your already subscribing to the religion. If you don't, it just sounds stupid(2).
> 
> 1. Biblical sacrifice generally requires, well, sacrifice. I don't know if you noticed, but not only is your god still existing in your dogma, but so is the sacrificed version of himself.
> 2. Unless you are in a bad place, self-hating and vulnerable.


_Unlike the example you gave, the Bible is out there for anyone to read. People who reject it choose to remain ignorant of the Truth. The vast majority of the world knows who Christ is, but about the people who have literally never heard of Him, I do not know what their fate will be. I too have questions that need to be answered.

Ask yourself, what are the chances that life started with a bang and evolved into an incredibly complex system of elements and organisms, full of order and structure? It would be so astronomically small that it's easier to say "impossible". It makes more sense to believe that an omnipotent God (who doesn't need to be created as He's outside of time and space) created all of this.

Harry Potter is fiction, it only happened in the book and film series, not in real life.

The sacrifice itself isn't evidence, Creation is. Prophecies coming to fulfillment is. Evidence alone isn't enough though, you would want to know what God is like before you decide to follow Him. Only a loving God is worthy of praise. If He didn't care about us, He wouldn't bother to sacrifice Himself for humanity.

And of course I know that the sacrificed version of God still exists. The Son is just one of God's three forms.
_


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> _Regarding the subject of critising VS attacking, I said "At least admit you did the latter in this case". I didn't say you had admitted to it yourself, I would have used different words if that would be the case. You're the one making the mistake here._


I stand corrected, but still, I asked how you differentiate 'attack' and 'criticise', which you still haven't responded to.



> Correct, saying a belief is shameful is not an attack because it focuses on the claim rather than the person. But you said "shame on you" which focuses on the person (me). That's why I gave you those examples to show the difference. You may not have anything against me, but it does come across that way, do you realise that?


I still don't see a claim that something said is shameful as a personal attack. Of course you said it, but it's a comment on your claim, not you as a person. I didn't say you were a typically shameful person for example. Just that it was a shameful comment to make.



> Scientists claim to know things they've never personally experienced, but oh wait, it doesn't matter because you agree with them... I do believe I have found the Truth, but I do not claim superiority because I could be wrong.


The fact you think personal experience rather than peer reviewed scientific evidence and consensus is what rational/scientific people make judgement calls on just highlights your ignorance of academia and how science works. It's no wonder you believe what you do when you have such low standards for evidence and obvious credulity due to not adhering to academic/scientific/intellectual criteria.



> You're doing the exact same thing by claiming there is no life after death. We both cannot be 100% sure what will happen.


So if we don't know then why make specific claims that you do know? Why not just take the rational position and say nothing happens _as far as you know_, since there is no evidence for anything happening? I don't know bigfoot doesn't exist with 100% certainty, but no evidence suggests it does so it can be rejected as easily as a claim of fairies, unicorns or heaven.

Only those wanting to believe those things exist believe they exist, hence the subsequent cognitive bias/intellectual dishonesty in their desperate attempts to justify them.



> I believe life in general has significance, not just mankind. If I would be arrogant, I would claim humans are more important than anything else.


OK so when/where in natural history did life acquire this status? Do you believe whatever species of bacteria have more significance than serotonin for example? Where do you draw the line between chemistry, organic compounds, biology/life for example, and why?



> It is not my job to judge humanity, that is God's decision. I don't like the thought of people suffering in Hell, but there is a price that has to be paid for sin. God is just. Do you think murderers, thieves, rapists, etc who never get caught in life would be free of judgment? Those are some of the graver sins, but God hates all sin, even the minor ones. Everyone will be held accountable for their actions, even believers. God only sees people who believe in His Son as righteous.


'Sin' is subjective, and much of what religious people deem as 'sin' is arguably 'sinful' to believe as being so.

You are still maintaining that dissent from your decreed doctrine means those who don't conform with be punished by your god. As I say, that is abhorrent, as it's unjustifiable due to the absence of evidence for a judgemental deity.



> Just because there is no evidence (yet), doesn't mean it can't be true. Out of all those religions, only one can be true. Many people are deceived. That is why the Bible says the road to destruction is wide where many shall go, and the way to life is narrow where few shall go.


What other things do you believe to be true and vehemently argue for the existence of that you admit don't have evidence for?

Do you see how this works yet?



> I said atheists should have nothing to worry about, you said they don't; implying that the vast majority do worry. So which one is it?


You said, "If they worry so much...". I simply repeated that the vast majority don't, reinforcing that the vast majority of atheists don't care about your threats of hell as they are as inane as numerous other claims of damnation for not conforming to xyz supernatural beliefs.



> I'm not a Muslim because the Qu'ran condones killing unbelievers. It is sexist because women are treated as property. It is a works based salvation, where if you don't pray X amount of times or do this or that, you're in danger of losing your salvation. Getting 72 virgins in Heaven is also a joke because they would be slaves. Apparently Muhammed married young children, does that sound like being a good example to you? Like I said, I do not want to serve anyone but Christ, even if I would end up being wrong.


Your own doctrine is filled with similar statements. You just choose to ignore them. This is just more cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty. Christianity was just as brutal as fundamentalist Islam a few hundred years ago.

I personally welcome religious people cherry picking their doctrine, as it's the road to to its oblivion as they pick the tree bare in line with progressive modern knowledge, (we've seen this happen all over the developed world over the last 150 years), but I can never tolerate intellectual dishonesty without criticism of it.



> It's not in line with modern advanced cultures, aka science? I already told you that older things don't necessarily have to be false.


They don't, but if they don't stand up to scrutiny, then they can easily be dismissed, just as anything that doesn't stand up to scrutiny can.



> You keep saying my beliefs are arrogant, but by claiming only your views are intellectually honest is arrogance as well.


So you think valuing honestly is arrogance? :roll



> When you said "shame on you". I have already explained why at the top of this post.


It's unfortunate if you think that to mean shame on you as an entire being. I simply meant it in relation to your stated belief. Do I think you are a typically or inherently shameful person? No. I'm just talking about what you said earlier.



> Oh, but I'm not the only one who is wrong. It would be great if you would admit you are wrong as well.


I'm glad you have admitted you are wrong.  Feel free to expand on what you think I'm wrong about and we can debate it.


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> Unlike the example you gave, the Bible is out there for anyone to read. People who reject it choose to remain ignorant of the Truth.


I'd argue those that chose not to read it and believe it are those that aren't credulous.



> The vast majority of the world knows who Christ is, but about the people who have literally never heard of Him, I do not know what their fate will be. I too have questions that need to be answered.


For the vast majority of the history of Christianity much of the world didn't know about it. Why would something that was the 'Truth' not be revealed to them? Bear in mind that many other religions say exactly the same thing in that they are the 'truth' and that you and I are ignorant for not believing their doctrine.

What does that tell you? Please take a moment to think about it.



> Ask yourself, what are the chances that life started with a bang and evolved into an incredibly complex system of elements and organisms, full of order and structure? It would be so astronomically small that it's easier to say "impossible". It makes more sense to believe that an omnipotent God (who doesn't need to be created as He's outside of time and space) created all of this.


Wow you are really confused. It seems you are getting the the big bang mixed up with evolution. :?

Nobody is saying life started with a 'bang'. Evolution is inherently a process that infers development, typically from something very simple to more complex. Evolutionary biology is unarguably well substantiated, hence why it's a scientific theory. (aka fact for those that don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in lay terms)

It takes great ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to say natural/biological complexity requires the vast intelligence and therefore complexity of a deistic creator. Do you really not see how that's a double standard?



> Harry Potter is fiction, it only happened in the book and film series, not in real life.


Arguably the same as the bible. Both were written by mortal people, and both refer to mysticism and fantasy.



> The sacrifice itself isn't evidence, Creation is. Prophecies coming to fulfillment is.


Can you give some examples of how creation is proof of creation, and what these alleged fulfilled prophecies are?



> Evidence alone isn't enough though, you would want to know what God is like before you decide to follow Him. Only a loving God is worthy of praise.


You're own doctrine often shows that frequently it's a jealous, immoral, unjustifiably judgemental, 'evil' god you worship. Just because there are passages which promote love doesn't mean that's all it states. You're just cherry picking they parts you want, again expressing intellectual dishonesty.



> If He didn't care about us, He wouldn't bother to sacrifice Himself for humanity.


What idiot sacrifices himself for what doesn't need sacrificing for? Humans were getting on just fine, and we still are in so many largely irreligious societies. Better than ever in fact. If anything in the West it was worship of the Christian god that played a part in the dark ages, and it was the increasing rejection of god in latter years that led to the Enlightenment and the thankfully mainly unobstructed development of the modern world with it's much increased standard of life for most. Look at the Middle East for an example of how religious dominance stagnates development and retains much medieval like culture.



> And of course I know that the sacrificed version of God still exists. The Son is just one of God's three forms.


Claims of knowledge of the unknowable and unsubstantiated are arrogant and delusional.


----------



## drjohnsn

Apoc Revolution said:


> _Harry Potter is fiction, it only happened in the book and film series, not in real life._


So is the Bible.



Apoc Revolution said:


> _Unlike the example you gave, the Bible is out there for anyone to read. People who reject it choose to remain ignorant of the Truth. The vast majority of the world knows who Christ is, but about the people who have literally never heard of Him, I do not know what their fate will be. I too have questions that need to be answered._


So is the Koran.



Apoc Revolution said:


> _Ask yourself, what are the chances that life started with a bang and evolved into an incredibly complex system of elements and organisms, full of order and structure? It would be so astronomically small that it's easier to say "impossible". It makes more sense to believe that an omnipotent God (who doesn't need to be created as He's outside of time and space) created all of this._


What are the chances that that life started with a bang and evolved into an incredibly complex system of elements and organisms, full of order and structure resulting in, specifically, you and your environment? Astronomically small. So astronomically small that its demeaning to astronomics to call it astronomically small.

What are the chances that that life started with a bang and evolved into an incredibly complex system of elements and organisms, full of order and structure? Not bad. The Big Bang is still not fully fleshed out, but evolution is beyond tried and true.

That's the problem with a lot of theists: they look at the odds that *they* exist. That's like asking what the odds are that you've rolled every digit of pi since the beginning of time. Pretty slim, but its not like its doing anything unusual to get there. (Rolling 5's since the beginning of time is also not unusual, but its easier to see it with the random digits of pi.) *The point is, the die was cast, and you're asking what the odds are that the number that came up, came up, given that it has come up. The odds are 1.*



Apoc Revolution said:


> _The sacrifice itself isn't evidence, Creation is. Prophecies coming to fulfillment is._


Of course the sacrifice isn't evidence. It's only in an ancient, repeatedly retranslated and pruned archive of ancient myths that it shows up. Many of the fulfilled prophesies have been shown to have been added in after the fact, or the result of writing to fulfill a prophesy (sometimes even a mistranslated prophesy). And, of course, "creation" implies a creator. If you're interested in discussing that, then you'll have to find a word that doesn't presume you're already right. I suggest "nature".



Apoc Revolution said:


> _Evidence alone isn't enough though, *you would want to know what God is like before you decide to follow Him*._


Actually, I've got a pretty good idea of what your god is like. Just no evidence that shows he's not a myth. I've also got a decent idea of what Thor is like (thank you Marvel).



Apoc Revolution said:


> _Only a loving God is worthy of praise. If He didn't care about us, He wouldn't bother to sacrifice Himself for humanity._


Because you can totally prove that.

You know what? Screw this.

What are the traditional attributes associated with the Christian god God? Omnipotence, he can do anything; omniscience, he knows everything; omnibenevolence, he is the epitome of loving. Let's start with omniscience. Your god knows me intimately. He knows every minute aspect of me, and knows exactly why I find his existence difficult to accept. He understands perfectly that I can see how the simplest explanation for my existence does not involve him. Omnibenevolence: he does not begrudge me this. He commiserates in my ignorance, and seeing as in my current state I am destined for eternal torment, he desperately wishes for me to, well, not end up in hell. He loves me as much as anyone could ever hope to. Omnipotence: He is fully capable of doing the minimum required to point me in the right direction. He is capable of doing so without infringing upon "free will", by definition of "omnipotence", but that's not a problem anyway, because angels and humans with *personal contact* with him have still had their will free to betray and refuse him. Dispelling the questions of his existence is not an issue of free will.

He is aware of the solution, capable of action, and motivated to erase this uncertainty.

But I'm still an atheist.


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

ugh1979 said:


> While I know you are just being facetious, I truly believe most Christians see god/jesus as a white man, rather than of the Middle Eastern ethnicity that if the religion is true they/he clearly is.
> 
> A classic example of religious white supremacy. :roll


It's not only with religion. It's in pretty much everything. When the Germans found out the Beethoven and Joseph Hayden weren't white, they damn near lost their minds. They have buried this for centuries.

Beethoven and Joseph Hayden, yes a few of the "greatest composers" were European Black a Moors. The German word for ***** was "Mohr" at the time.

Researchers are finally admitting that if those two came back to life to see how artists have "idealized them" they would be shocked as well as indignant.

The same with Pushkin, yes, Russia's "greatest author", Aesop the famous Greek morality story teller, St. Nicholas, and Alexander Dumas, the author of the "Three Musketeers"..

It's all been 'white washed" to make the caucasian race "feel" superior.. Even if it is a lie.


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

and yes, if Jesus Christ were to walk into an elevator with a bunch of white folks, the first the a white female will do without even thinking is grab her purse.
:lol


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

I once read the verse that gawd pays attention to detail:

*There's not a bird that falls to ground with gawd knowing about it.*

Yeah, well.. knowing about it, and *doing something about it* are two different things..


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

And to be honest?

Social Media and the television networks, have the "attention to detail" sh**t on lock down..

there's not a bird that falls down from the heavens without it being televised on Fox News.

Anyone remember those ducks being filmed on the highway during the OJ Simpson car chase?


----------



## ugh1979

thinkstoomuch101 said:


> It's not only with religion. It's in pretty much everything. When the Germans found out the Beethoven and Joseph Hayden weren't white, they damn near lost their minds. They have buried this for centuries.
> 
> Beethoven and Joseph Hayden, yes a few of the "greatest composers" were European Black a Moors. The German word for ***** was "Mohr" at the time.
> 
> Researchers are finally admitting that if those two came back to life to see how artists have "idealized them" they would be shocked as well as indignant.


Actually the Nazi's research concluded Beethoven was white. Regardless though, unbiased modern research suggests he potentially had a black ancestor, but do you consider someone not to be white unless they are 'pure bred' white? Same for Haydn.



> The same with Pushkin, yes, Russia's "greatest author", Aesop the famous Greek morality story teller, St. Nicholas, and Alexander Dumas, the author of the "Three Musketeers"..
> 
> It's all been 'white washed" to make the caucasian race "feel" superior.. Even if it is a lie.


These are more examples of people who may have been say 1/8th black (so a great grandparent that was black) but you can't then say that means they are black IMO. Where do you draw the line? Maybe my great great great grandfather was black? Does that make me black too?

I think someone needs to be at least 1/2 black and possibly a 1/4 black to be considered mixed race for example, but 1/8, or 1/16, when all other relatives are white for example, then no.

Saying someone isn't white unless they are 'pure bred white' can actually have some nasty connotations.


----------



## thinkstoomuch101

ugh1979 said:


> Actually the Nazi's research concluded Beethoven was white. Regardless though, unbiased modern research suggests he potentially had a black ancestor, but do you consider someone not to be white unless they are 'pure bred' white? Same for Haydn.


Nope, the Nazi's also tried to cover up the Eugenics (good genes) campaign by hiding the fact that all DNA comes from Africa. Also the Nazi's whitewashed pretty much every thing that was Jewish or non-white in order to deify the Aryan race.

When the british invaded the NAZI camp. This was discovered. And many scientists picked up where the nazi's left off. No matter what they did - the DNA still lead back to "The Motherland".. Africa.

The Dominant Gene it has been proven through science is the african gene. We all come from Africa. White folks or Asian or any other race - are not a "separate" race if the DNA is filtered done from one race, pal. Caucasians are the "recessive" gene. "recessive" in scientific language meaning *"less dominant"** "inferior" **"less than".. *

If you are white then you are the "*recessive race*", kiddo.

Thanks to media manipulation, the Nazi's with their foolishness and excessive white washing of history. All or most non-white achievements in science, medicine, navigation, technology, and the performing arts, (i.e., music), has been suppressed or hidden to lionize the aryan race.

Caucus was in Russia. Africans had migrated to that area. Once scientist stated that "he had never encountered a more beautiful people." Why? He had never encountered africans before. They were known as the first CAUCASIANS. Why because of their geographic location - not their race.

The africans intermixed with albinos that lived in that area. Who migrated over centuries.

Beethoven was a European* Black Moor*. The title of that word can not be any plainer. Regardless of whether if there was 1/8th or one drop - he was still black. As well as Hadyen, and other famous artist, composers, or what ever.

When white folks see a "Mixed" individual here in the states - they usually call them "black". If they are brown and mixed - yes they call them black. But if they are lighter and mixed, they stick to "Mixed" or pretend they are white.

Because of this judgement of ones superficial exterior - *even whites are confused.*

Regardless, thanks to the* "One Drop" rule* that was implemented in South Africa, the U.S., Europe and other continents, which i don't think you're aware of - If a person had "One Drop" of african blood in him, he was considered black. They used this for enslavement, in the 1980's to isolate blacks from whites and shipping them to CapeTown in South Africa..

Black people didn't make those "rules" up ******* did.

And if the DNA comes from Africa, there is no such thing as a "pure bred" white person. period.

And if that One drop rule still applies today? - well, maybe you should get off your "Nazi quoting" soap box, and get some rhythm...


----------



## ugh1979

thinkstoomuch101 said:


> Nope, the Nazi's also tried to cover up the Eugenics (good genes) campaign by hiding the fact that all DNA comes from Africa. Also the Nazi's whitewashed pretty much every thing that was Jewish or non-white in order to deify the Aryan race.
> 
> When the british invaded the NAZI camp. This was discovered. And many scientists picked up where the nazi's left off. No matter what they did - the DNA still lead back to "The Motherland".. Africa.


I'm not arguing in favour of the legitimacy of related corrupt dishonest science that the Nazi's published. I'm simply talking about the fact that the Nazi's claimed he was white, based on their studies. Of course, that lead on to my next point about at what stage can one be considered white, considering we all have non-white ancestors at some stage.



> The Dominant Gene it has been proven through science is the african gene.


We have many dominant genes, but yes many originally evolved in Africa. The way you say it with caps makes it sounds like there is some "master gene" that is African.



> We all come from Africa. White folks or Asian or any other race - are not a "separate" race if the DNA is filtered done from one race, pal.


I don't argue that all our ultimate ancestors evolved in Africa. We are all a mixture of genes. I agree that the term race is contentious and not really used by biologists these days. We're all the same species, albeit with genetic variation, and the term ethnicity is probably more appropriate. Pal.



> Caucasians are the "recessive" gene. "recessive" in scientific language meaning "less dominant" "inferior" "less than"..
> 
> If you are white then you are the "recessive race", kiddo.


Wow your racism is as shameful as your knowledge of biology. Do you really think we only have one gene? Kiddo.



> Thanks to media manipulation, the Nazi's with their foolishness and excessive white washing of history. All or most non-white achievements in science, medicine, navigation, technology, and the performing arts, (i.e., music), has been suppressed or hidden to lionize the aryan race.


I'd say that's exaggerating quite a bit but I agree non-white males have traditionally had and sometimes still have a harder time getting recognition for their work. Of course for a long time those groups couldn't even get the work needed to make such achievements. I wouldn't just put the blame on the Nazi's though, they only played a small part in the oppression of certain groups. It's thousands of years of Caucasian history and all the oppression/racism that existed which are the legacy reasons for why things are they way they were and still are to a thankfully much lesser degree, as we of course still don't quite have perfect equality across the board as we should.



> Caucus was in Russia. Africans had migrated to that area. Once scientist stated that "he had never encountered a more beautiful people." Why? He had never encountered africans before. They were known as the first CAUCASIANS. Why because of their geographic location - not their race.


The people Meiner encountered in Caucasus weren't black, and the comment you attribute to him was on his personal admission based on the fact that they had paler skin than the other 'race' he had encountered. (Mongolians)

Here's a quote for example, "Meiners put forth that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin"".



> The africans intermixed with albinos that lived in that area. Who migrated over centuries.


Wait, what? :? Albino's are incredibly rare for a start. What do albinos have to do with it anyway? People of all ethnicities interbreed when living in mixed societies.



> Beethoven was a European* Black Moor*. The title of that word can not be any plainer. Regardless of whether if there was 1/8th or one drop - he was still black. As well as Hadyen, and other famous artist, composers, or what ever.


Let's clear this one up with a citation from the Beethoven Centre:



> *Was Beethoven black?*
> Many people in the African-American community claim that there has been a conspiracy on the part of European-Americans to conceal Beethoven's alleged black heritage. The theory that he was black is based on the fact that Beethoven's ancestors came from the Flemish region of northern Europe that was invaded and ruled by the Spanish. Since the Moors were part of Spanish culture, it is possible that Moors were part of the invasion. This theory, however, is not based on genealogical studies of Beethoven's past, which are available to the public. Rather, it is based on the assumption that one of Beethoven's ancestors had a child out of wedlock. Another part of this theory is that Beethoven was given the nickname "Spaniard" as a child because he had a dark complexion by European standards. However, it is important to note that no one called Beethoven black or a moor during his lifetime, and the Viennese were keenly aware both of Moors and of mulattos, such as George Bridgetower, the famous violinist who collaborated with Beethoven.
> 
> Source


I personally don't care what ethnicity he was, or if he was 'pure', but lets stick to the facts rather than going all conspiracy theory.



> When white folks see a "Mixed" individual here in the states - they usually call them "black". If they are brown and mixed - yes they call them black. But if they are lighter and mixed, they stick to "Mixed" or pretend they are white.
> 
> Because of this judgement of ones superficial exterior - even whites are confused.


I agree it can be difficult to judge just based on looks, so when in doubt a snap decision is easily made. There's no way round that, and people of mixed ethnicity are free to classify themselves accordingly or not at all if they choose to.

We inherently make judgements based on people appearance across a huge array of factors.



> Regardless, thanks to the "One Drop" rule that was implemented in South Africa, the U.S., Europe and other continents, which i don't think you're aware of - If a person had "One Drop" of african blood in him, he was considered black. They used this for enslavement, in the 1980's to isolate blacks from whites and shipping them to CapeTown.


Actually I'd already alluded to that. It's actually almost exclusively American rather than being found in other European colonies/ex-colonies, and arguably part of racist ideologies and laws. Do you believe the 'One Drop' rule is correct?



> Black people didn't make those "rules" up ******* did.


Is the racism really necessary? :roll I personally don't take any offence to the term but you are clearly using it in a racist manner.



> And if that One drop rule is true - well, maybe you should get off your "Nazi quoting" soap box,


Well as I say that 'One Drop' rule is only true in this day and age if you believe it to be true. It's something racists often spout. As I've been telling you it's nonsense. Regarding the "Nazi quoting", as I've explained I was just correcting your erroneous claim, and then telling you that black oppression extends well before the Nazi's.



> and get some rhythm...


Believe me I will. :lol I love 'black' music for example.


----------



## JTHearts

I belong in hell because God hates me


----------



## ugh1979

JTHearts said:


> I belong in hell because God hates me


Why do you think your god hates you?


----------



## JTHearts

ugh1979 said:


> Why do you think your god hates you?


Because people go to hell and that shouldn't happen, and I'm going to go there because he endowed me with superior empathy to him.


----------



## aaaa1111bbbb2222cccc3333

eukz said:


>


Lol. Sounds like the mafia.


----------



## ugh1979

JTHearts said:


> Because people go to hell and that shouldn't happen, and I'm going to go there because he endowed me with superior empathy to him.


That sounds like some twisted confused logic there.

Why not just abandon the concept of hell and god and be happy?


----------



## eukz

thedevilsblood said:


> Lol. Sounds like the mafia.


Funny because the Catholic Church is a mafia  Makes sense in a way.


----------



## longtimenolove

While reading this thread, I found the answer to the age-old question "Why are women only attracted to the jerks?" It's not off topic, trust me.

Can anyone dispute that god is not a jerk? Honestly? You can skirt the question and talk about his undying love for us and his wanting us to have free-will. I had an ex who always professed his undying love for me and talked about wanting me to be a free-thinking woman, unless I disagreed with him. He divorced and found someone else to stroke his ego (til she stopped stroking and also got her *** divorced). He was kind of a jerk, right? Or what about the crazy guy I dated who kept calling me threatening to commit suicide if I didn't love him back. How dare I not love him back because he first loved me.

But I was raised to adore God and not question him being an ***, and I was raised to submit to men who walked with god and lived like an *** by proxy. A lot of us have been trained from birth to love this jerk, so what do you expect? We naturally gravitate towards jerks. Question answered.


----------



## JohnDoe26

ugh1979 said:


> Exactly. You're rightfully inferring Pascal's Wager issues.
> 
> Someone posted this earlier but i'll post it again as it sums up the ludicrously of the claim:


I'm Christian/Catholic (believe in hell and everything) and I always found this picture hilarious. :grin2:


----------



## Royals

Mostly out of love because Christians don't want people to perish in their sins. God doesn't want us to perish. If someone is drowning wouldn't you try to save them? If someone falls wouldn't you pick them up? It's only natural to help others out of love and care. Jesus preached about hell more than anything else but in a more loving way. You shouldn't preach in a condeming way but in a loving, accepting way. But hell is a big part of the Bible so it's important to talk about. And the truth is that unrepented sinners go to hell. Hell is a place or wheeping and gnashing of teeth. Who would want someone to go there? If you really love someone you dont sin or watch others sin and destroy yourself and others. If you love someone you would warn them about sin and the consequences.


----------



## livetolovetolive

I believe the biblical heaven and hell are symbolic for our lives.


----------



## Boby89

Royals said:


> Mostly out of love because Christians don't want people to perish in their sins. God doesn't want us to perish. If someone is drowning wouldn't you try to save them? If someone falls wouldn't you pick them up? It's only natural to help others out of love and care. Jesus preached about hell more than anything else but in a more loving way. You shouldn't preach in a condeming way but in a loving, accepting way. But hell is a big part of the Bible so it's important to talk about. And the truth is that unrepented sinners go to hell. Hell is a place or wheeping and gnashing of teeth. Who would want someone to go there? If you really love someone you dont sin or watch others sin and destroy yourself and others. If you love someone you would warn them about sin and the consequences.


If someone will come to you say that you should wear a tin foil hat all day because otherwise aliens will abduct you and do nasty experiments on you, would you think that person is right in their head? 
Because that's how atheist see the whole preaching of hell thing.


----------



## Royals

Boby89 said:


> If someone will come to you say that you should wear a tin foil hat all day because otherwise aliens will abduct you and do nasty experiments on you, would you think that person is right in their head?
> Because that's how atheist see the whole preaching of hell thing.


Not nearly as much people believe in alliens as in God. But no I wouldn't do that because nowhere it is said aliens will return. No one claims that. Enough people believe Jesus will return though. That is a reality for lots of people. Although I believe aliens exist, enough people have bad experiences with them. Because I believe demons disguise themselves as aliens.


----------

