A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

[marketandchurch]

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:

Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

• Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

[Danmark]

I would be lying if I said that we can't know about hell. You stick with your church's dogma and I'll stick with what I know from extensive research.

Yes indeed, the other person's views are always mere 'dogma' while the one who makes this claim calls his or her dogma the result of "extensive research."

My extensive research suggests belief in the supernatural is dogma.
The point is that calling another's belief 'dogma' whilst calling one's own the product of "extensive research" is self serving bloviation that begs the question.

[Logicaloutreach]

[Replying to post 4 by Clownboat]

Its not a scare tactic if its the truth. And the bible says if your not for God your against him. There is no in between so your comfortable middle ground dont exist. And the bible is not addressing children it talking to adults, so if you count yourself responsible for that roll the bible is talking to you. The is no good and bad people roll call! Good and decency come from God, the ability to do good comes from him. So if you reject him you reject the decency you've been given! When you die you will be judged! So do more research on the bible you soul depends on it. Thats the only reason christians debate with you.

[marco]

I would be lying if I said that we can't know about hell. You stick with your church's dogma and I'll stick with what I know from extensive research.

Although I believe theological evidence is probably against you, there being so much talk of hell and punishment, I hope that you are right and that after death all is sweetness and light. Those who claim they have died and returned certainly never talk of anything other than light, though that could well be firelight.

One can do extensive research into ancient Egypt, into the verbs that take the ablative in Latin or into the complexities of the Sicilian in chess but I cannot see how anyone can do extensive research into hell, unless it is to examine the various fictions, such as the one Orpheus visited.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by Clownboat]

Its not a scare tactic if its the truth. And the bible says if your not for God your against him. There is no in between so your comfortable middle ground dont exist. And the bible is not addressing children it talking to adults, so if you count yourself responsible for that roll the bible is talking to you. The is no good and bad people roll call! Good and decency come from God, the ability to do good comes from him. So if you reject him you reject the decency you've been given! When you die you will be judged! So do more research on the bible you soul depends on it. Thats the only reason christians debate with you.

Moderator Comment

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.

Couple of things. This is preaching, when one's beliefs are stated as established fact it is preaching, and what's more, directed AGAINST another it borders on the uncivil. This is a debating site, not a preaching site. Also the "you" at the end of your comments makes it personal...and borders on a personal attack.

If that was not your intention, please choose your words more carefully.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1141 by Clownboat]

I would like to differ with you on that point. Atheism is not a psychological state of mind "lacking any knowledge of god"

In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist.
the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods

A = without or not. Now add the meaning of theism.
without belief in the existence of a god or gods.

, atheism in fact in the literal sense is without god,

We agree, which makes you correcting me quite odd don't you think?

meaning the rejection of God.

Incorrect. A person can lack beliefs in gods without actually rejecting them.
Tell me, do you reject Santa Claus, or do you not have reasons to believe in him anymore? We may not believe in Santa, and you can't really reject something you don't believe to be real.
Try this for an experiment: Do you reject akjflorujslfk?

You can prove negatives but in the case of atheism, it is just as equal being an atheist like it is being theist.

Whoever said otherwise? What are you on about?

The area where one one would not know whether a god exists or not, but is open to the question is an agnostic,

I am also well aware of the definition of agnostic. What lead you to believe there was an issue with the understanding of that term? Where did agnostic even come up?

I just wanted to correct you on that point.

You first need to be right before you can go about correcting.
(Copy/paste from you): I just wanted to correct you on that point.

Either way, my point was addressing his use of scare tactics. You know, like terrorists do.

[Clownboat]

This has made the subject of hell so confusing that people don't know what it really is.

Do you acknowledge that you are one of these people?

I ask, because we all know that details about a 'hell' cannot be known in this life. Yet you have made statements about hell in this thread as if you have some special knowledge that escapes Christians that don't think like you or follow your specific dogma. You then point to a very specific type of dogma (JW.org) as if we should consider it an authority on a subject that cannot be known.

Do you admit that we (yourself included) don't know the details about a hell nor if a hell is even real? People can believe by faith in anything they want, so I'm not asking you this and hoping you will answer from your faith, nor provide the opinions of your specific dogmas. I just want to be clear that you are like the rest of us on this matter, or if you consider yourself to be different on this unknown subject.

No, I am not one of the people who propagate false ideas about "hell" and cause people to be confused. We CAN know about hell in this life. The number one thing we can know is that it doesn't exist as a place of fiery torture & agony. If you really want to know what the reasonable, logical, and sound reasons are to reject a literal hell-fire, then you would gain a lot by going to www.jw.org .

I would be lying if I said that we can't know about hell. You stick with your church's dogma and I'll stick with what I know from extensive research.

Your dogma seems clear.
I challenge you to describe my dogma. Go.

Either way, you continue to make claims about a hell as if you have some special knowledge. I wont believe that you have special knowledge until you can show that you have special knowledge.

You seem to have faith, and there is nothing special about faith. You see onewithhim, it takes faith to be a Muslim, it takes faith to be a Christian and it takes faith to believe that your local shaman can speak with your ancient ancestors. This is all that you have when it comes to your dogma about hell.

Faith leads to false beliefs is what this shows. Sure, it's possible that one belief could be true out of all the thousands of options, but it is more likely that all faith beliefs are false IMO. Either way, faith is not a good trait to have. You could end up a Muslim onewithhim!

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 4 by Clownboat]

Its not a scare tactic if its the truth.

What you are doing can be compared to what ISIS or terrorists in general do.
scare tac·tic
noun
plural noun: scare tactics
a strategy intended to manipulate public opinion about a particular issue by arousing fear or alarm.

And the bible says if your not for God your against him.

The Bible says all sorts of un-true things, what is your point? I'm not against him, I personally just don't believe in him any longer. I'm still a good Christian man, just without the beliefs. I'm good for goodness sake, not because I have been scared in to being good with empty hell and judgement threats.

There is no in between so your comfortable middle ground dont exist.

Yes, religions cause this Us vs Them attitude. They cause this black/white thinking that you have. It is described as cult behavior and it helps to retain members by having groups (Thems) to unite against.
The fact of the matter is, there is all sorts of ground between believing in a gods and not believing in gods.

And the bible is not addressing children it talking to adults,

I was informing you that you are addressing adults and not children. I was not replying to the Bible.
Your scare tactics in order to try to change opinion about the beliefs you happen to hold dear will not be successful here. Unfortunately, they work great on children and when they grow up believing that they are so horrible that they deserve hell borders on child abuse in some peoples minds. Perhaps you will try reasoned debate instead?

Good and decency come from God, the ability to do good comes from him.

This is demonstrably false. Also, shame on you. Evidence is the fact that there are good atheists. They are good, because they are good, not because they were told that they are horrible and will burn in hell if they don't follow religious teachings. With that in mind, who is actually the better person? The one being good out of fear, or the one that is good for goodness sake?

So if you reject him you reject the decency you've been given!

You have the cart before the horse. Please show me that there is a him. I cannot reject something that I'm not aware even exists. I don't reject any god for your information.

When you die you will be judged!

You got me scared real good now! Seriously, don't you have any reasoned arguments to present? If this is the best you got, consider the fact that you may not have a god or a holy spirit helping you. I sure am.

So do more research on the bible you soul depends on it.

Gahhhhhh! Really, is this all!
You will know them by their fruits.

Thats the only reason christians debate with you.

Don't pretend to know the mind of others.
Pride comes before a fall.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 1149 by Clownboat]

About agnosticism or proving negatives, they were just clarifications that I wanted to bring up, that weren't the direct issue at hand per say, but rather relevant points that were necessary in the sense that others often conflate those points and I wanted to address them beforehand.

Agnosticism is the position that there is not sufficient knowledge about something, a "subject matter", which warrants one to be indecisive on the grounds on whether to reject or accept a proposition "God". Atheism is a world view, just like theism. The position that you hold onto is a "watered down" definition of atheism that wasn't not held before, before atheists realized how difficult or unfeasible it would be to reasonably prove that no God exists. The New Atheists try to shift the burden of proof on the Theists, claiming that proving negatives are impossible, but I hope you know that isn't true.

Although you are trying to define a transliteral definition of Atheism, that isn't the Standard definition, you are just trying to throw off debaters, by trying to shift the grounds of the debate to more favorable grounds, away from philosophical scrutiny to ones of psychology. About Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, akjflorujslfk, etc. I am not an atheist about them, in the ontological sense. You seem fixated with debating this on strictly epistemological basis only, but I feel that you may be ignoring the ontology of my point. I say that I am an agnostic about them because I dont have definitive proof on whether or not I should believe or disbelieve in them (it would not be warranted for me to unjustly reject the possibility of their existence). As a matter in fact, I would be ignostic about the existence of akjflorujslfk.

Atheism is the counter position to theism (both being opposite worldviews), that claims in its standard definition at Stanford University
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athei ... sticism/#1

We are talking about worldviews are we not? If not I don't know what your going on about and what you even defend. At the end of the day, if you reject this, you still have to answer for yourself the question of whether God exists or not? [an inevitable question that you can't escape from no matter how you try to change the arguments]

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1149 by Clownboat]

About agnosticism or proving negatives, they were just clarifications that I wanted to bring up, that weren't the direct issue at hand per say, but rather relevant points that were necessary in the sense that others often conflate those points and I wanted to address them beforehand.

Agnosticism is the position that not sufficient knowledge about something, a "subject matter", which warrants one to be indecisive on the grounds on whether to reject or accept a proposition "God". Atheism is a world view, just like theism. The position that you hold onto is a "watered down" definition of atheism that wasn't not held before, before atheists realized how difficult or unfeasible it would be to reasonably prove that no God exists. The New Atheists try to shift the burden of proof on the Theists, claiming that proving negatives are impossible, but I hope you know that isn't true.

Although you are trying to define a transliteral definition of Atheism, that isn't the Standard definition, you are just trying to throw off debaters, by trying to shift the grounds of the debate to more favorable grounds, away from philosophical scrutiny to ones of psychology. About Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, akjflorujslfk, etc. I am not an atheist about them, in the ontological sense. You seem fixated with debating this on strictly epistemological basis only, but I feel that you may be ignoring the ontology of my point. I say that I am an agnostic about them because I dont have definitive proof on whether or not I should believe or disbelieve in them (it would not be warranted for me to unjustly reject the possibility of their existence). As a matter in fact, I would be ignostic about the existence of akjflorujslfk.

Atheism is the counter position to theism (both being opposite worldviews), that claims in its standard definition at Stanford University
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athei ... sticism/#1

We are talking about worldviews are we not? If not I don't know what your going on about and what you even defend. At the end of the day, if you reject this, you still have to answer for yourself the question of whether God exists or not? [an inevitable question that you can't escape from no matter how you try to change the arguments]

There are threads where we have discussed the definition of atheism to death. Your posts would be appropriate there.

Here, my point was the 'scare tactics' being used. Your desire to discuss the definition of atheism is off topic and had nothing to do with the point that was made.

Feel free to re-open the discussions on atheism or to start new.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 1153 by Clownboat]

True, although you brought up a point not relevant to the main topic, and I wanted to correct that point, but it seems as though it is still up for debate.

I'll end that point here as it really has no place for this thread. If anyone or yourself are still interested in talking about this at its appropriate thread, I brought up that thread again at the Christianity and Apologetics Index,
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=320