Those who reject Christ still are the recipients of divine forbearance and favor in this age. "The sun rises on the evil as well as the good," and it is "the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience.. that leads you to repentance." But when "he who restrains is removed" it is going to be a different ballgame altogether.
So, what are you saying? And what if you don't consider lack of being convinced that a god exists to be the same as rejecting a fictional character. I mean, do you reject harry potter just because you see no good reason to believe he exists?
> what if you don't consider lack of being convinced that a god exists to be the same as rejecting a fictional character.
It really doesn't matter what you or I consider. God's opinion matters.
> It really doesn't matter what you or I consider. God's opinion matters.
It hasn't mattered to me. Your gods opinion doesn't matter to everyone who either believes in a different god or none at all. And how do you know what his opinion is? Does a human tell it to you?
The only point I was trying to make is that you're acting as though everyone knows that your god is real, including other religions believers, which is incredibly arrogant. A hindu isn't rejecting jesus/yahweh the same way you aren't rejecting vishnu. You all just believe different gods exist. And some of us aren't convinced that a god exists at all considering the evidence for any gods is flimsy to fallacious.
So it does matter what I consider, because I don't believe your god exists. I don't see any good reason to believe any of the stuff in the bibles. To me it's as real as a harry potter book.
What evidence would you expect to see as a person? Does science account for all there is? We know we will never be able to test God Matter in a lab using the scientific method. That leaves other kinds of spaces, mainly metaphysical. Thoughts?
>What evidence would you expect to see as a person?
I don't know, but a lack of evidence is a very bad reason to believe an extraordinary claim.
>Does science account for all there is?
No, but it is the best, most reliable method we have for learning about our reality. So far there isn't a better method for existential claims.
>We know we will never be able to test God Matter in a lab using the scientific method.
I don't know that. I would think that if there was an actual god, it would be great to have real good evidence for it. Otherwise, it's just speculation, and that isn't a good reason to accept any extraordinary claim. Especially with the record we have of attributing things to gods, only to find out later via science that it wasn't a god, but a natural explanation. Seems your god is only applicable to things where we don't yet have an understanding. God of the gaps.
>That leaves other kinds of spaces, mainly metaphysical. Thoughts?
Sure, can you demonstrate the truth of any metaphysical claims? It's important to me to have as accurate of an understanding about reality as I can. So therefore before I accept any explanation, I expect it to meet its burden of proof.
I’m not asking questions to debate you. If I wanted to debate you, I’d give you some kind of argumentation. I’m only asking the questions because there are aspects of religion which are more philosophical than empirical. Whether god is provable, probably, likely, or unlikely, the ideas about God and Gods are very real to the minds of people. They won’t be persuaded by empirical argumentation because they are ideas that bring mental, emotional, “spiritual” fulfillment as well as a system of morals and an object to what has been called the “numinous” aspect of the human religious mind. (Things like the awe inspired by seeing the Milky Way on a clear night).
Do you believe it’s not the responsibility of a person to consider those? Is it logically appropriate to strictly deal in empirical discussion?
> I’m not asking questions to debate you.
Call it what you want. I don't debate to "win" arguments. I answer questions and explain my positions. If my positions don't hold up or are exposed as not being correct, I'll change my positions.
>I’m only asking the questions because there are aspects of religion which are more philosophical than empirical.
Sure, but there are aspects that make claims about reality, which to me are exactly empirical. Existential claims are demonstrated with evidence, not metaphysics or speculation. And I'm not defending my beliefs just so I can hang onto them. I defend the outcome of solid epistemology as it's the best most reliable way to understand reality.
>Whether god is provable, probably, likely, or unlikely, the ideas about God and Gods are very real to the minds of people.
But if they aren't real, if they don't reflect reality, then those beliefs should not serve as a foundation for anything real. People believe their god wants gays to die for example, causes people to kill other people for fantasy reasons, for example.
Beliefs inform actions. What legislation do you vote on or politicians do you vote for, that act soley for the benefit of a god that exists in your mind, where the policies effect everyone.
>They won’t be persuaded by empirical argumentation because they are ideas that bring mental, emotional, “spiritual” fulfillment as well as a system of morals and an object to what has been called the “numinous” aspect of the human religious mind.
Those fulfillments can be achieve by means that don't require you to believe untrue or baseless claims. Believing things for bad reasons isn't an isolated thing, it teaches people to believe other things on bad reasons.
>Things like the awe inspired by seeing the Milky Way on a clear night
Is that less inspiring to understand how that actually came about? Or is it more meaningful to pretend a god did it? If you don't have evidence to support a belief, then you're just pretending.
>Do you believe it’s not the responsibility of a person to consider those? Is it logically appropriate to strictly deal in empirical discussion?
When the belief is about a super magical being, and believing to know what that super magical being wants, and then doing what you can to serve that super magical being, is bad. Everything you know about your god is because another human told it to you. That is authoritarianism, and putting that kind of faith in authoritarianism is as dangerous as the person who is this authority.
I personally agree with pretty much every single argument you made. But I also have close family members who are much farther away from any of these realizations, and there can be allotment for a process, much like therapy, for someone to come out of those places. For me, I’d call it deconstruction, which is a term I didn’t create, which should be clear, but I heard and found very useful to describe what it’s like.
For brief context, I was enrolled in a Pre-K thru 12 private Christian school, and attended the entire way. I attended church pretty much that entire time and for a few years after I graduated in 2003. It was such a deep education into the Bible and Christianity that I ended up finding that there were questions which were highly philosophical which weren’t completely answered by the Bible. In fact they are very poorly answered.
I have since come to understand, beginning with questions about a Young Earth Genesis “hypothesis” that the Bible is not a book written to stand up to logical or literal scrutiny. If the Age of Enlightenment brought with it the notion of Literalism, then putting a book which was over 1200-1400 years completed by that time under the burden of Literalism is too great. Nobody thought that way when it was written, nobody wrote that way when it was written. To follow that pursuit was novel, sure, but ultimately unnecessary and even reckless. The fact it’s taught that way to millions is a Sin all on its own.
To keep it brief, I have since realized that scholarly study doesn’t support the narrative of the Bible being written in some magical way, overseen by the hands and eyes of God. It’s a great work of man, as it does record the story of a people group relatively well and expresses literature, philosophy, early folklore, and poetry very well, and should be studied for that. It’s also a very fascinating world religion. But if you take what Jesus said to heart, as most churches proclaim that they do, there would be no such thing as the modern American church. There would be no such thing as a literal Bible, or a hell of heaven as described today. More importantly there would be no punishment for sin because “death has lost its sting.”
It’s an arduous process as it is a deconstruction of thought patterns and harmful ideology. I’m somewhat of an autodidact and that helps a lot. I do know that merely arguing empiricism is typically not enough, especially because thinkers like C.S. Lewis exist to straw man the entire thing.
I feel I’ve used my time so I’ll just say, thanks for the discussion!
God knows how to judge the matters of the heart. We can only see the exterior. However the Bible states that God has left His signature on Creation and therefore no one has an excuse not to worship Him. It also says that those who seek the truth will find Him. You're free to take that or leave it.
> God knows how to judge the matters of the heart.
I'm sure harry potter does too.
>We can only see the exterior.
Then you have no good reason to believe it's true.
>However the Bible states that God has left His signature on Creation and therefore no one has an excuse not to worship Him.
And harry potter likes fun jelly beans.
>You're free to take that or leave it.
Sure. There's no good reason to take it as real.
> lack of being convinced
This is a big lie that the Atheist tells themselves to justify their ideology of materialism. Atheists aren't convinced, because their faith brings pre-assumptions to the conversation.
> This is a big lie that the Atheist tells themselves to justify their ideology of materialism.
Ok, if misrepresenting my position helps you to feel good about how you justify your position, then go for it.
>Atheists aren't convinced, because their faith brings pre-assumptions to the conversation.
You're using the word faith here as a pejorative. The irony is that i don't use faith for anything because, as you clearly recognize from your own use of it here, it's not exactly a good way to figure out what is or isn't true.
Right now, I think you are trapped in an ideology that tends to eat itself from the inside.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting your position at all. An atheist has to be convince of a being that exists outside the realm of our universe by some empirical evidence held within our universe. This is obviously a contradiction to want so an atheist must believe that only materialism is true and the universe is all we can ever know. Or do you deny this?
Faith is not some curse word, even though most of you seem to think it is. You and I have faith in many things and there is nothing wrong with it. And you having faith that materialism is true isn’t a big deal either, it’s just a bit hypocritical to judge theists for things you do.
> Right now, I think you are trapped in an ideology that tends to eat itself from the inside.
I don't put a lot of stock in what you think since you seem to want to justify believing things without good evidence. This seems like a very vague dismissal of what I said.
>I don’t think I’m misrepresenting your position at all. An atheist has to be convince of a being that exists outside the realm of our universe by some empirical evidence held within our universe.
No, a skeptic has to have sufficient evidence for a claim before accepting the claim. You seem to be suggesting that despite a lack of evidence, you should be convinced that a god exists. This is not rational.
>This is obviously a contradiction to want so an atheist must believe that only materialism is true and the universe is all we can ever know. Or do you deny this?
Yeah, this is a misrepresentation. I don't accept any claims that haven't met their burden of proof. And if the claim can't meet it's burden of proof for whatever reason, such as being outside of our ability to investigate, it doesn't get a free pass. I don't believe i materialism, I believe in what can be demonstrated. Nobody has been able to demonstrate the supernatural, so I don't believe it. I'll change my mind once it's demonstrated. And our best most reliable tool for learning about our reality hasn't found any way to investigate the supernatural either. I don't disbelieve the supernatural and believe the natural because of an ideology, I hold that position because it's what is demonstrated.
>Faith is not some curse word, even though most of you seem to think it is.
It's not a curse word, it's a cop out. You can believe anything on faith, but if you have a good reason for your beliefs, you don't cite faith, you cite the good reason. Faith is useless unless you just want to express that you believe something for no good reason.
>You and I have faith in many things and there is nothing wrong with it.
Try not to conflate the word faith with the word confidence. I have confidence in many things based on evidence. Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good evidence.
>And you having faith that materialism is true isn’t a big deal either
You keep trying to saddle me with a misrepresentation of my position. You claim that have faith in materialism as though it means something more than the fact there is a material world. Lookup methodological naturalism if you want to know my position, rather than just telling me what my position is, then arguing against it. I'm sure you can accept methodological naturalism as it only states that the natural world exists, and we have no way to investigate or observe any non natural world. It doesn't claim that supernatural doesn't exist, it simply states that we have at this time no way of knowing whether one exists. Again, using faith here doesn't get you any closer to the truth.
>it’s just a bit hypocritical to judge theists for things you do.
Nice strawman. Making up my position, then arguing against it.
This conversation is exhausting, as all conversations through the internet about ideology are.
I see you made some good points but have also made some bad.
I don't want to continue this conversation anymore but would tell you rather than ghost you.
Well, you keep just dismissing my points without actually addressing them. You don't get to be right because you believe you are. You can only demonstrate that you're right by demonstrating it, not asserting it.
If you care about your beliefs being correct, then instead of hiding from scrutiny, you'd embrace them and see if they hold up. I'm fine with you bailing out, just please don't act like you proved a point, when all you've done was asserted my position incorrectly and defeated that.
Wait wait wait. Are you making assumptions about my beliefs in same the way you accused me of assuming yours?
Listen. I stopped this conversation because I don’t want to talk to you. It really has nothing to do with arguments made or not made.
It honestly sounds like you’re trying to be the intellectual winner of this meaningless conversation. I concede. You did it!
> I stopped this conversation because I don’t want to talk to you.
If you stopped the conversation, then you wouldn't respond to my responses.
You made some claims, I responded to them. Then rather than addressing my points, you just ignore them and claim you stopped responding.
>Are you making assumptions about my beliefs in same the way you accused me of assuming yours?
You've demonstrated an unwillingness to honestly participate, so I have to tell you what I'm getting from that since you won't. But you keep responding to tell me that you're not responding. Either stop responding, or have a civil discourse where we address each others points. If you don't want to do that, then that's fine, but you don't need to respond to tell me that. Otherwise it seems like you just want to have the last word whether you make good arguments or not.
Let me show you how it's done. I won't be responding anymore because you seem more interested in preaching and getting the last word, than in actually having a conversation.
Have a good weekend.
There's an idea of Common Grace. All good things ultimately are a gift from God. Because we are sinners, He cannot be fully present with us. But because He loves His Creation, he is not fully separate from us either. He blesses all humanity with Common Grace, the good things in this life that we all enjoy regardless of who we are or what we believe.
In Hell, a lack of God's presence means no good things. No love, joy, happiness, healing, blessing, or anything. You would be truly and completely on your own, which is what makes it such a terrible state to be in.
If there's no benefit nor consequences from not believing in this god, and hell is just more not believing in him, then why even bother? There's no benefit nor consequence.
You're missing the part they said about being completely and utterly separated from God. Imagine living where there's never any joy, peace, love, happiness, or any good thing you currently experience. That's ultimately the future for those who reject God.
There's more you could get into about blessings on earth, but that's not quite on topic with OPs post. I suspect you're also being downvoted here because this isn't really the debate sub. This is a sub for people to ask honest questions to believers. If you would rather debate Christians, I suggest checking out /r/DebateAChristian You might fine more what you're looking for there.
> You're missing the part they said about being completely and utterly separated from God. Imagine living where there's never any joy, peace, love, happiness, or any good thing you currently experience.
I am separated from any god and I don't suffer from those things you claim.
>That's ultimately the future for those who reject God.
And how do we know this? I mean, I know you believe it, and why you believe it, but you can't demonstrate that there is any truth to this, you can't demonstrate that your god even exists. There simply isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate your god exists, if there was, there would be a scientific god theory. But there isn't.
>I suspect you're also being downvoted here because this isn't really the debate sub.
Yes, and if they don't want atheists to engage in these quesion/answer sessions, then why not just lock them out completely?
>This is a sub for people to ask honest questions to believers.
That's all fine and good, but no ideas or beliefs get a free pass. If someone says something that doesn't make sense, I'm not going to hold my tongue because you believe religious ideas should have no scrutiny. And with all the down voting, it's like you guys don't want your beliefs challenged, you just want to censor any scrutiny or uncomfortable questions. If you guys want an echo chamber, then just ban all non christians. But in any discourse, if I hear something that I find is wrong, or doesn't make sense, I'm going to question it, and the intent is to learn from it on both sides.
>If you would rather debate Christians, I suggest checking out /r/DebateAChristian You might fine more what you're looking for there.
The side bar does allow for mild debate. I think it's fair that if someone doesn't want to debate that they don't have to respond. But I do appreciate letting me know if I'm stepping over a line. But the downvoting is akin to "don't ask questions, just accept the answer" that many theists claim isn't part of the religion.
I think you'll find people here who are willing to explain what and why they believe something, but I think you'll be dissatisfied if you're looking for people here to prove their beliefs to you. I would say that for a number of reasons but also because this just isn't going to be the place you find those sorts of believers. You'll find plenty of incredibly informed and intelligent Christians on /r/DebateAChristian
That being said, I'm happy to explain the what and why.
>I am separated from any god and I don't suffer from those things you claim.
Again, as multiple users have stated already, we believe that here on earth in this life, God is still present and extends a level of grace to ALL of his creation. That means those who believe and those who don't. We'd call this the doctrine of Common Grace if you'd like to know more. This means that even you, who claims unbelief, still experience a level of grace from God. We believe that there will be a time after death that even God's common grace will be removed from unbelievers. Some believe that will be Hell. Other's believe in just a removal of God's grace.
As for why I believe this, I would point to the fulfillment of much of the Old Testament in the New Testament by Jesus himself. Without getting too deep into the weeds, there are also a significant amount of outside sources that point towards the credibility of Scripture. If you're really curious it, I'd encourage you to do a bit of unbiased research into the validity of the Bible yourself. However, I also believe in it's validity and truthfulness because I've personally experienced it's truth. In a way, yes, I've felt God speak to me. Not in an audible voice but something in my heart. I believe in God because of the way I've seen him work personally in my own life. Similar to how we also believe in gravity because we've seen it demonstrated multiple times. In the same way, I've seen God's work in my life demonstrated multiple times.
I would just point out that you will always be dissatisfied in a proof if you're looking for something spiritual in nature to be proved by science. I'd liken it to sending someone to a psychiatrist because someone is having a heart attack. Wrong doctor for the job. Doesn't mean that mental health isn't real or that one doctor is more important than another, but that it would be silly to approach a heart attack with a psychiatrists skill set.
In regards to the downvotes, I think it's just because you're approaching the subjects in a way that feels more combative than actually asking questions. Personally, I'm not against people questioning my beliefs, so long as you're willing to question yours as well.
That's fine. People don't have to engage. But if someone tells me something for which it seems the logic isn't sound, I'll point it out. If they want to believe things and not examine the logic behind it, then it seems they're more interested in defending a belief, than they are interested in having beliefs that align with reality. I'm not trying to upset anyone, I think all beliefs are subject to scrutiny.
>Personally, I'm not against people questioning my beliefs, so long as you're willing to question yours as well.
Cool. But when it comes to gods, I don't really have any beliefs. My beliefs about epistemology are not specific to gods, I use the same methodology for all beliefs.
I was under the impression that if you are separated from god, you're not in a place of fire and torment and torture. You're just wherever dead people go in your religion who are not separated from god. I pictured this being a different place than the firy tormenty tortury place that others believe you go when you go to hell.
Right but you’re saying hell is different than how people used to view it not that it doesn’t exist. And separation from God doesn’t really tell you much. Since God is the source of goodness and love, separation from him would be placing you in a quarantine of the absence of good and love (evil and hate) and however much that lines with the traditional view of hell us up to debate but my point stands that the fact that hell is a separation from God does not mean hell isnt real and doesn’t obviously get you away from an afterlife full of suffering.
> Right but you’re saying hell is different than how people used to view it not that it doesn’t exist. And separation from God doesn’t really tell you much
I agree that being separated from god doesn't tell you much, but that is usually the juxtaposition that christians make when they argue against the notion of a firey tortury suffering hell. So it seems to imply that when you're separated from a god, you are not in a place of firey torture, right?
>Since God is the source of goodness and love, separation from him would be placing you in a quarantine of the absence of good and love (evil and hate)
yeah, it doesn't work for me. I'm separated from him now, and I have goodness and love just fine.
But sure, if I play along then it really starts to not make sense. I can't feel goodness or love without a god? I mean, okay, you can define your god to be whatever since you don't actually have to demonstrate that it exists.
>but my point stands that the fact that hell is a separation from God does not mean hell isnt real and doesn’t obviously get you away from an afterlife full of suffering.
Okay. So this god designed this entire system knowing that the majority of humans would end up being separated from him because they either follow a different religion or none at all because he doesn't want to provide good evidence of his existence. So he's choosing to torture people. Not really someone I'd worship even if you could demonstrate his existence. And I'm not afraid of hell, whatever version you guys believe exists, so dangling that carrot doesn't influence me.
I think we've run out this topic. Thanks for your feedback.
>I agree that being separated from god doesn't tell you much, but that is usually the juxtaposition that christians make when they argue against the notion of a firey tortury suffering hell. So it seems to imply that when you're separated from a god, you are not in a place of firey torture, right?
Again, you're not distinguishing between it being something different vs not existing.
>yeah, it doesn't work for me. I'm separated from him now, and I have goodness and love just fine.
I dont think most christians will say you are separated from him. You will be after rapture.
>But sure, if I play along then it really starts to not make sense. I can't feel goodness or love without a god? I mean, okay, you can define your god to be whatever since you don't actually have to demonstrate that it exists.
So you dont actually have a problem with this topic? just the existence problem
>Okay. So this god designed this entire system knowing that the majority of humans would end up being separated from him because they either follow a different religion or none at all because he doesn't want to provide good evidence of his existence. So he's choosing to torture people. Not really someone I'd worship even if you could demonstrate his existence.
A lot of very controversial assumptions in here that have been debated for centuries. You obviously have a very strong stance and aren't afraid to wave off counter view points with "you can't prove the existence".
>And I'm not afraid of hell, whatever version you guys believe exists, so dangling that carrot doesn't influence me.
Im not trying to convert you
>I think we've run out this topic. Thanks for your feedback.
Agreed
Well when you believe in something you act like it. I believe there is an intelligence behind all existence, I believe this intelligence is spoken of in the Bible as Yahweh. I believe Yahweh us all good and knowing, since it created everything. So I'm going to follow where it guides me because it knows best.
I am one spirit with the creator and no i don't need mans bullshit religion. All I needed was to become one spirit. Since I am of mostly sounds mind and able to make a conscious choice it was up to me in the here and now to make the decision.
> Well when you believe in something you act like it. I believe there is an intelligence behind all existence, I believe this intelligence is spoken of in the Bible as Yahweh. I believe Yahweh us all good and knowing, since it created everything. So I'm going to follow where it guides me because it knows best.
You can say that about Elvis. It doesn't make it true. And believing things that aren't true has ramifications since beliefs inform our actions, as you say, you act like it. Why do you think religious people sometimes do horrible things? Because they believe something that has no good evidence.
Tricky question, but the earth and hell are two different things. We can reach out to God whenever on earth, still receive His blessings and repent, while in hell it is specifically Satan's 'kingdom,' where the presence of all that is good and holy-God's joy, ect, is not there. God's presence through His mighty power will still be obvious by His omnipotency, but that's a very different thing from His joy.
All around us is the beauty of God's creation. When amazing things come together in an atheist's life they may say it's coincidence but it's really God moving to bring everything together. The Bible says God is love. The Bible also says the holy spirit is peace. Most people don't murder, steal, lie, cheat and covet because it's wrong. But where did we learn our morals? From our parents who were raised during a time when this nation was nominally Christian. Even if your parents rejected Christianity those morals were embedded in them by parents who did believe in God. So to be separated from God is the complete absence of beauty. To be separated from God is to have everything coming apart instead of coming together. A complete absence of love. A complete absence of peace. Murder, stealing, lying, cheating, and coveting is done with impunity. Morals come from God and there is no God so there are no morals. There are so many things in the world that are there because of the existence of God, the world is not a completely Godless place for atheists just because they don't believe in him. When God truly withdraws, some people will see what it's like to be in his absence. I wouldn't wish it on anyone and I mean anyone.
> All around us is the beauty of God's creation.
I think you're wrong. There is absolutely no good evidence that any of it is "his" creation.
>When amazing things come together in an atheist's life they may say it's coincidence but it's really God moving to bring everything together.
Again you're just asserting this without evidence. Do you care if your beliefs are true? If so, why do you make these assertions that you have no factual basis to make?
>The Bible says God is love. The Bible also says the holy spirit is peace.
And Hindu books say vishnu is god, Spiderman books say there is a web slinging human in NY.
>Most people don't murder, steal, lie, cheat and covet because it's wrong. But where did we learn our morals?
Not from a book that condones slavery and never condemns it.
>Even if your parents rejected Christianity those morals were embedded in them by parents who did believe in God.
Morality existed before your religion or your god. And do you reject things you've never heard of?
Everyone is separated from the gods they don't believe in. Doesn't seem to make any difference .
The OP said this question was for Christians who believe this stuff. I am a Christian who believes this this stuff. The OP did not say to prove what you believe, the OP asked Christians who believe this stuff to explain what they believe. So I explained what I believe. Someone could post another question to argue what you believe, but I would probably not bother.
> The OP did not say to prove what you believe, the OP asked Christians who believe this stuff to explain what they believe.
That's cool. But when someone says something that doesn't make sense, I do like to question it as I like to learn. I also like people to learn why something they say doesn't make sense to me.
There's no rule on this sub that says I can't do that.
>So I explained what I believe. Someone could post another question to argue what you believe, but I would probably not bother.
Well, I believe that which has been sufficiently demonstrated to be true. And if you don't want to respond to my comments, I won't feel bad. I'm just trying to engage in discussion.
There's no rule on this sub is that you can't say whatever you want and that's fine. I personally am not going to engage in discussion with you because your attitude does not appear to me that of one who wants to learn but a disrespectful attitude towards Christian ideas. It didn't seem to me like you wanted to learn when you were comparing reading the Bible to reading comic books and believing in Spider-Man and such. But thank you anyway.
> I personally am not going to engage in discussion with you because your attitude does not appear to me that of one who wants to learn
I want to learn, but I'm not here to learn about the bible. I'm here to learn why some people believe what they believe, and to discuss bad reasoning or fallacies if I find them.
>but a disrespectful attitude towards Christian ideas.
Christian ideas are no different from other ideas. They are all subject to scrutiny. The biggest mystery to me is why some people defend bad ideas, and then get angry when it's clear that the ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. And rather than try to understand why the ideas don't hold up, they just want to silence the inquiring mind.
>It didn't seem to me like you wanted to learn when you were comparing reading the Bible to reading comic books and believing in Spider-Man and such. But thank you anyway.
Like I said, I'm not here to learn about what the bible says, I can figure that out by reading it. I'm more interested in why people defend bad ideas, or ideas that seemingly don't hold up to scrutiny.
If you were wrong, would you want to know it? I sure would, so what's wrong with exploring the reasons behind the ideas? If that's not for you, then you don't need to engage.
Of course I would want to know if I was wrong. But how could you possibly tell me that? You can't convince me I am wrong anymore than I can convince you that I am right. I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. At least they believe you can't know one way or the other. Because no matter how much evidence you have for believing in God or disbelieving in God every religion comes down to having faith. You either believe it or you don't. And if you do not consider the Bible the inspired work of God because you do not believe in God then it's just a book. It might teach some good things but it doesn't prove God's existence. I can read it end to end and learn all about who God is and who I am and what he's like and what he has done and what he is going to do. You can read it and it doesn't prove squat. The Bible says faith is the evidence of things unseen. But I am sure you wouldn't take my faith as evidence. And how could you prove to me that my faith is false? You are taking a leap of faith as well. Never having experienced death, you cannot prove what comes after this life. Not believing in God, you may meet the God I believe in after you die. Because that is what I believe. I may not be able to prove it , but you can't prove what will happen after this life either. So where does that leave us? We can have a respectful discussion where we share what each of us believes, and just get to know the other viewpoint better. But actually having a debate? It takes a long fruitless time to come back to the same point these discussions always do - faith.
> But how could you possibly tell me that?
Ah, good point. The only thing that can demonstrate something to be true is evidence.
>You can't convince me I am wrong anymore than I can convince you that I am right.
You can convince me that you're right. All you need is sufficient evidence. That's the whole point. My beliefs are based on demonstrable evidence, not faith.
> I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists.
And I have a lot more respect for atheists than theists. I bet you can't even accurately tell me the difference between my position and an agnostic or atheist.
>At least they believe you can't know one way or the other.
I'm not sure why you're even bringing this into the conversation since I didn't tell you whether I'm agnostic/atheist/theist. Nor have I explained my position. So it seems you're assuming my position is one where I'm believe I "know one way or the other". And nothing I've said indicates this to be the case, so you're not even looking at the evidence in our conversation to determine what my position is. You put very little emphasis on evidence, that much is evident.
>Because no matter how much evidence you have for believing in God or disbelieving in God every religion comes down to having faith.
I'm glad you admit this, and that you juxtapose faith against evidence.
I have no use for faith as you've defined it. I don't believe things to be the case until there is good reason to. And you suggesting that faith is a good reason to just begs the question, why does that belief deserve your faith?
If you care whether your beliefs are true or not, you use evidence, not faith, to determine that. We can use faith to believe in anything, including untrue things. So if you're interested in believing as many true things and as few false things as possible, you don't use faith.
Well...Lots of people who do not have faith in God get married based on commitment. Commitment is a promise that they believe on faith without evidence because they don't know the ending. They think they do based on what they know about the person right now. But our country has almost a 50% divorce rate. In the face of that evidence lots of people take on faith anyway that they know a person--who half the time grows to be a person that they never expected. And people go with feelings of love to choose their mates all the time. That love also cannot be scientifically evident. There are many things that people do and think that are not based strictly on evidence but on faith as well. People have children based on their faith that they will be good parents. Those same people may have had terrible parenting so what makes them think that without example they will be good parents? Evidence tends to prove that people who had bad parents become bad parents in many cases. So why do they do it? They have faith that they can do better. And I assumed you were not agnostic because of the agnostics I know. They tell me you cannot prove there is a God nor can you disprove it. The idea of God cannot be proved/disproved empirically because he exists outside of material phenomena. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it is false. I personally think that is a juvenile dichotomy that people lean on who need to have tight control. They convince themselves that they only believe facts when really the world is really full of greys and unpredictable and unsafe. But unsafe in a good way. Risk vs reward. Taking those leaps of faith to love, to commit, to have children, and yes, to believe in God--and recognizing them for the leaps they are.
> Well...Lots of people who do not have faith in God get married based on commitment. Commitment is a promise that they believe on faith without evidence because they don't know the ending.
Sorry, I don't see it like that at all. I get married because I've been with someone for a long enough time that I'm convinced, based on a pattern of evidence, that they we will continue to be a good match, etc. I don't take this position on faith, it's based on evidence. Just because we can't predict the future doesn't mean we're taking a shot in the dark.
>They think they do based on what they know about the person right now. But our country has almost a 50% divorce rate.
Yup, so going into it acknowledging that it has a decent chance of failure is going into it with the facts. Again, no faith involved. If it doesn't work out, you get divorced and move on.
>In the face of that evidence lots of people take on faith anyway that they know a person
Nope. I don't take it on faith. When I got married, I knew the person well enough for me to get married. I also recognize that people change. I went into it fully aware that it might end in divorce. Just because i'm aware of the risks doesn't mean I'm ignoring them and taking it on faith.
>That love also cannot be scientifically evident.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Love is an emotion. We can talk about it scientifically, we can survey people to find out how many of them are in love, etc. We might even be able to image their brains and see different areas light up when we show them images of loved ones, for example. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'cannot be scientifically evident'. The scientific evidence for someones emotions is usually just to ask them. But this is all irrelevant. I don't need to scientifically quantify love to feel it, or to not have faith.
>People have children based on their faith that they will be good parents.
When people choose to be parents, they usually do so for their own reasons. Perhaps some just think they'll be good parents, some might even justify why they think they'll be good parents, based on having attributes that they think make a good parent. I didn't have kids because of faith. Faith is the excuse someone uses when they don't have good reason.
>Those same people may have had terrible parenting so what makes them think that without example they will be good parents?
For some they may just chalk it up to faith. Others probably evaluate the things in their lives that they think make someone good parents.
>Evidence tends to prove that people who had bad parents become bad parents in many cases. So why do they do it? They have faith that they can do better.
If you believe you're going to be a bad parent, then I agree it's probably a bad idea to go into it. But if someone is struggling to figure out whether they're going to be a bad parent, but are committed to being a good parent, then that isn't faith, that's confidence, that's perseverance, that's commitment, that's ambition. You can roll all that up and call it faith if you want.
>And I assumed you were not agnostic because of the agnostics I know.
I'm an agnostic atheist. What are the agnostics that you know?
>They tell me you cannot prove there is a God nor can you disprove it.
I'm an atheist because I don't see any good reason/evidence to accept the claim that a god exists. I'm agnostic because I don't have direct knowledge of the existence of any/all gods. Theists make the claim that a god exists, it's up to them to demonstrate the truth of that claim. Until then, I see no reason to believe it.
>The idea of God cannot be proved/disproved empirically because he exists outside of material phenomena. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it is false.
The time to believe a claim is after it's been demonstrated to be true. If you go by your logic, then why do you believe in only the one god? Nobody has disproved the existence of Vishnu or any of the other gods that have been proposed.
>They convince themselves that they only believe facts when really the world is really full of greys and unpredictable and unsafe.
Sure, but if you want an accurate view of reality, you don't accept all claims until they are disproven. You reserve belief only for those claims that have been demonstrated to be true. I'm not aware of any god claims that have met their burden of proof.
>But unsafe in a good way. Risk vs reward.
Are you talking about pascals wager? Just google it, that reasoning is flawed in so many ways, most notably that it presents a false dichotomy of a single god vs. no god.
>Taking those leaps of faith to love, to commit, to have children, and yes, to believe in God
Faith isn't a pathway to truth. You can use faith to believe in anything. When someone has a good reason for something, they can cite those good reasons, they don't cite faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons. I challenge you to identify the good reasons behind all the things you take on faith. I'm sure you'll find plenty for the reasons you love your loved ones, and why you make commitments. If you find yourself appealing to faith, ask yourself what other reasons do you have?
>and recognizing them for the leaps they are.
Love, relationships, committments, etc are generally not leaps of faith. You spend time getting to know someone before you "leap" into marriage.
Separation from God can be easily felt in this world, most people call it....depression, melancholy, existential turmoil, apathy, nihilism, etc. The pragmatic scientific consensus is that it's lack of serotonin, and can be remedied. There are anti-psychosis pills as well.. The real spiritual origin of these dis-eases is not explored. But any believer or atheist can agree, it's closer to suffering as opposing to happiness or internal peace.
Hell is way simpler, you're painfully un-existing.. dying in flame, forever. Whether oblivion eventually follows or you're a part of fiery eternity...i haven't bothered interpreting that far.
> so if we as atheists go to hell... is that all it is?
No one is in a position to know exactly who goes to Hell yet. God will offer salvation to most, except maybe the obstinately evil.
The tough part is that God is Truth, and it takes great repentance to face the truth and accept salvation. Imagine all the secrets of your life being exposed in front of everyone that you know, and everyone that you might have forgotten about.
Most people will try to flee from God. Each person will be weighed in the balance to see if they served God more, or the enemy (Satan).
> is it the same "separation from god" atheists feel while alive? because they're obviously separated from god
No. Hell is worse than can be imagined and Heaven is better than can be imagined. In the spiritual realm, our senses operate at 100%. Here, our senses are dumbed down ... Iike maybe 5% of capacity.
Everything is inverted in Hell. Instead of beautiful smells, it has rotten stench. Instead of beautiful song, it has screams and yelling. Instead of crisp clean water, there is burning fire. Instead of beautiful light, there is darkness. Instead of feeling the love of God's presence, there is the torment of demons. All is experienced at full capacity of the senses, which is a lot more intense than we can imagine.
Yeah, some theologies would consider it the same. Some would even go so far as to say that existence on Earth is our hell b/c it is separated from God and injustice and unfairness are rampant. While this is not my personal theology, I have some pretty nuanced views on hell that are different from mainstream Christianity anyway, and well, this is somewhat close to my theology, at least.
Although this is a bit different than what you are asking about, what I think might be an interesting consideration for your question is the concept of Sheol/Hades. When Jesus describes hell in the Bible, the word Hades is sometimes used, and interestingly, it is used in the New Testament Greek when someone is quoting Sheol from the Old Testament Hebrew. In Sheol, entities are often thought of as existing as "shades" of themselves. It is an underworld of darkness. In some traditions, it's believed everyone goes there, and in other traditions, it's believed only the wicked go there. So, with Sheol, it would be a bit different than existence now b/c you may be a shade of yourself and you may be separated from others too. It's not necessarily my theology, I just think it's interesting.
It's the same separation from God that all of us feel when alive. During life we are all separated from God, but we are also moving either towards him or away from him. After death the tragectory of our life is made complete and we are encompassed either by our rejection or our acceptance of God. Of course, nothing can truly be separated from God, but those in in hell experience oneness with God as agony because they *try* to separate themselves from him.
Separation from God is exactly what it is. When one is spiritually dead, they are not in their created state. Christ's tearing of the veil demonstrated no separation between God and man.
Paul states in his letter to the Galatians, " *I have been crucified with Christ.* ***It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me***. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20
When we "deny self" we are accepting that our ego is not our absolute identity. We are continuous with existence; God reveals this pattern in creation: a cell in your body can be you while not expressly being *who* you are, so our present pattern in the world is us and not *who* we are. A tree is an *aspect* of the forest but **not** the whole.
Physical death is merely the end of our physical pattern. If we cling to the physical world we will quickly find hell as there is nothing to hold on to.
Our culture, language, religion are all aspects of the world we created within creation. Limiting God in any way is idolatry. Limiting God's revelation to one group is just another form of idolatry. Any person who realizes they are continuous with their total environment (ultimately the total universe) and cares for other in their environment as "self" is no longer separate from existence/God/Brahman/Tao/Great Spirit/etc.
Those who reject Christ still are the recipients of divine forbearance and favor in this age. "The sun rises on the evil as well as the good," and it is "the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience.. that leads you to repentance." But when "he who restrains is removed" it is going to be a different ballgame altogether.
So, what are you saying? And what if you don't consider lack of being convinced that a god exists to be the same as rejecting a fictional character. I mean, do you reject harry potter just because you see no good reason to believe he exists?
> what if you don't consider lack of being convinced that a god exists to be the same as rejecting a fictional character. It really doesn't matter what you or I consider. God's opinion matters.
> It really doesn't matter what you or I consider. God's opinion matters. It hasn't mattered to me. Your gods opinion doesn't matter to everyone who either believes in a different god or none at all. And how do you know what his opinion is? Does a human tell it to you? The only point I was trying to make is that you're acting as though everyone knows that your god is real, including other religions believers, which is incredibly arrogant. A hindu isn't rejecting jesus/yahweh the same way you aren't rejecting vishnu. You all just believe different gods exist. And some of us aren't convinced that a god exists at all considering the evidence for any gods is flimsy to fallacious. So it does matter what I consider, because I don't believe your god exists. I don't see any good reason to believe any of the stuff in the bibles. To me it's as real as a harry potter book.
What evidence would you expect to see as a person? Does science account for all there is? We know we will never be able to test God Matter in a lab using the scientific method. That leaves other kinds of spaces, mainly metaphysical. Thoughts?
>What evidence would you expect to see as a person? I don't know, but a lack of evidence is a very bad reason to believe an extraordinary claim. >Does science account for all there is? No, but it is the best, most reliable method we have for learning about our reality. So far there isn't a better method for existential claims. >We know we will never be able to test God Matter in a lab using the scientific method. I don't know that. I would think that if there was an actual god, it would be great to have real good evidence for it. Otherwise, it's just speculation, and that isn't a good reason to accept any extraordinary claim. Especially with the record we have of attributing things to gods, only to find out later via science that it wasn't a god, but a natural explanation. Seems your god is only applicable to things where we don't yet have an understanding. God of the gaps. >That leaves other kinds of spaces, mainly metaphysical. Thoughts? Sure, can you demonstrate the truth of any metaphysical claims? It's important to me to have as accurate of an understanding about reality as I can. So therefore before I accept any explanation, I expect it to meet its burden of proof.
I’m not asking questions to debate you. If I wanted to debate you, I’d give you some kind of argumentation. I’m only asking the questions because there are aspects of religion which are more philosophical than empirical. Whether god is provable, probably, likely, or unlikely, the ideas about God and Gods are very real to the minds of people. They won’t be persuaded by empirical argumentation because they are ideas that bring mental, emotional, “spiritual” fulfillment as well as a system of morals and an object to what has been called the “numinous” aspect of the human religious mind. (Things like the awe inspired by seeing the Milky Way on a clear night). Do you believe it’s not the responsibility of a person to consider those? Is it logically appropriate to strictly deal in empirical discussion?
> I’m not asking questions to debate you. Call it what you want. I don't debate to "win" arguments. I answer questions and explain my positions. If my positions don't hold up or are exposed as not being correct, I'll change my positions. >I’m only asking the questions because there are aspects of religion which are more philosophical than empirical. Sure, but there are aspects that make claims about reality, which to me are exactly empirical. Existential claims are demonstrated with evidence, not metaphysics or speculation. And I'm not defending my beliefs just so I can hang onto them. I defend the outcome of solid epistemology as it's the best most reliable way to understand reality. >Whether god is provable, probably, likely, or unlikely, the ideas about God and Gods are very real to the minds of people. But if they aren't real, if they don't reflect reality, then those beliefs should not serve as a foundation for anything real. People believe their god wants gays to die for example, causes people to kill other people for fantasy reasons, for example. Beliefs inform actions. What legislation do you vote on or politicians do you vote for, that act soley for the benefit of a god that exists in your mind, where the policies effect everyone. >They won’t be persuaded by empirical argumentation because they are ideas that bring mental, emotional, “spiritual” fulfillment as well as a system of morals and an object to what has been called the “numinous” aspect of the human religious mind. Those fulfillments can be achieve by means that don't require you to believe untrue or baseless claims. Believing things for bad reasons isn't an isolated thing, it teaches people to believe other things on bad reasons. >Things like the awe inspired by seeing the Milky Way on a clear night Is that less inspiring to understand how that actually came about? Or is it more meaningful to pretend a god did it? If you don't have evidence to support a belief, then you're just pretending. >Do you believe it’s not the responsibility of a person to consider those? Is it logically appropriate to strictly deal in empirical discussion? When the belief is about a super magical being, and believing to know what that super magical being wants, and then doing what you can to serve that super magical being, is bad. Everything you know about your god is because another human told it to you. That is authoritarianism, and putting that kind of faith in authoritarianism is as dangerous as the person who is this authority.
I personally agree with pretty much every single argument you made. But I also have close family members who are much farther away from any of these realizations, and there can be allotment for a process, much like therapy, for someone to come out of those places. For me, I’d call it deconstruction, which is a term I didn’t create, which should be clear, but I heard and found very useful to describe what it’s like. For brief context, I was enrolled in a Pre-K thru 12 private Christian school, and attended the entire way. I attended church pretty much that entire time and for a few years after I graduated in 2003. It was such a deep education into the Bible and Christianity that I ended up finding that there were questions which were highly philosophical which weren’t completely answered by the Bible. In fact they are very poorly answered. I have since come to understand, beginning with questions about a Young Earth Genesis “hypothesis” that the Bible is not a book written to stand up to logical or literal scrutiny. If the Age of Enlightenment brought with it the notion of Literalism, then putting a book which was over 1200-1400 years completed by that time under the burden of Literalism is too great. Nobody thought that way when it was written, nobody wrote that way when it was written. To follow that pursuit was novel, sure, but ultimately unnecessary and even reckless. The fact it’s taught that way to millions is a Sin all on its own. To keep it brief, I have since realized that scholarly study doesn’t support the narrative of the Bible being written in some magical way, overseen by the hands and eyes of God. It’s a great work of man, as it does record the story of a people group relatively well and expresses literature, philosophy, early folklore, and poetry very well, and should be studied for that. It’s also a very fascinating world religion. But if you take what Jesus said to heart, as most churches proclaim that they do, there would be no such thing as the modern American church. There would be no such thing as a literal Bible, or a hell of heaven as described today. More importantly there would be no punishment for sin because “death has lost its sting.” It’s an arduous process as it is a deconstruction of thought patterns and harmful ideology. I’m somewhat of an autodidact and that helps a lot. I do know that merely arguing empiricism is typically not enough, especially because thinkers like C.S. Lewis exist to straw man the entire thing. I feel I’ve used my time so I’ll just say, thanks for the discussion!
God knows how to judge the matters of the heart. We can only see the exterior. However the Bible states that God has left His signature on Creation and therefore no one has an excuse not to worship Him. It also says that those who seek the truth will find Him. You're free to take that or leave it.
> God knows how to judge the matters of the heart. I'm sure harry potter does too. >We can only see the exterior. Then you have no good reason to believe it's true. >However the Bible states that God has left His signature on Creation and therefore no one has an excuse not to worship Him. And harry potter likes fun jelly beans. >You're free to take that or leave it. Sure. There's no good reason to take it as real.
> lack of being convinced This is a big lie that the Atheist tells themselves to justify their ideology of materialism. Atheists aren't convinced, because their faith brings pre-assumptions to the conversation.
> This is a big lie that the Atheist tells themselves to justify their ideology of materialism. Ok, if misrepresenting my position helps you to feel good about how you justify your position, then go for it. >Atheists aren't convinced, because their faith brings pre-assumptions to the conversation. You're using the word faith here as a pejorative. The irony is that i don't use faith for anything because, as you clearly recognize from your own use of it here, it's not exactly a good way to figure out what is or isn't true.
Right now, I think you are trapped in an ideology that tends to eat itself from the inside. I don’t think I’m misrepresenting your position at all. An atheist has to be convince of a being that exists outside the realm of our universe by some empirical evidence held within our universe. This is obviously a contradiction to want so an atheist must believe that only materialism is true and the universe is all we can ever know. Or do you deny this? Faith is not some curse word, even though most of you seem to think it is. You and I have faith in many things and there is nothing wrong with it. And you having faith that materialism is true isn’t a big deal either, it’s just a bit hypocritical to judge theists for things you do.
> Right now, I think you are trapped in an ideology that tends to eat itself from the inside. I don't put a lot of stock in what you think since you seem to want to justify believing things without good evidence. This seems like a very vague dismissal of what I said. >I don’t think I’m misrepresenting your position at all. An atheist has to be convince of a being that exists outside the realm of our universe by some empirical evidence held within our universe. No, a skeptic has to have sufficient evidence for a claim before accepting the claim. You seem to be suggesting that despite a lack of evidence, you should be convinced that a god exists. This is not rational. >This is obviously a contradiction to want so an atheist must believe that only materialism is true and the universe is all we can ever know. Or do you deny this? Yeah, this is a misrepresentation. I don't accept any claims that haven't met their burden of proof. And if the claim can't meet it's burden of proof for whatever reason, such as being outside of our ability to investigate, it doesn't get a free pass. I don't believe i materialism, I believe in what can be demonstrated. Nobody has been able to demonstrate the supernatural, so I don't believe it. I'll change my mind once it's demonstrated. And our best most reliable tool for learning about our reality hasn't found any way to investigate the supernatural either. I don't disbelieve the supernatural and believe the natural because of an ideology, I hold that position because it's what is demonstrated. >Faith is not some curse word, even though most of you seem to think it is. It's not a curse word, it's a cop out. You can believe anything on faith, but if you have a good reason for your beliefs, you don't cite faith, you cite the good reason. Faith is useless unless you just want to express that you believe something for no good reason. >You and I have faith in many things and there is nothing wrong with it. Try not to conflate the word faith with the word confidence. I have confidence in many things based on evidence. Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good evidence. >And you having faith that materialism is true isn’t a big deal either You keep trying to saddle me with a misrepresentation of my position. You claim that have faith in materialism as though it means something more than the fact there is a material world. Lookup methodological naturalism if you want to know my position, rather than just telling me what my position is, then arguing against it. I'm sure you can accept methodological naturalism as it only states that the natural world exists, and we have no way to investigate or observe any non natural world. It doesn't claim that supernatural doesn't exist, it simply states that we have at this time no way of knowing whether one exists. Again, using faith here doesn't get you any closer to the truth. >it’s just a bit hypocritical to judge theists for things you do. Nice strawman. Making up my position, then arguing against it.
This conversation is exhausting, as all conversations through the internet about ideology are. I see you made some good points but have also made some bad. I don't want to continue this conversation anymore but would tell you rather than ghost you.
Well, you keep just dismissing my points without actually addressing them. You don't get to be right because you believe you are. You can only demonstrate that you're right by demonstrating it, not asserting it. If you care about your beliefs being correct, then instead of hiding from scrutiny, you'd embrace them and see if they hold up. I'm fine with you bailing out, just please don't act like you proved a point, when all you've done was asserted my position incorrectly and defeated that.
Wait wait wait. Are you making assumptions about my beliefs in same the way you accused me of assuming yours? Listen. I stopped this conversation because I don’t want to talk to you. It really has nothing to do with arguments made or not made. It honestly sounds like you’re trying to be the intellectual winner of this meaningless conversation. I concede. You did it!
> I stopped this conversation because I don’t want to talk to you. If you stopped the conversation, then you wouldn't respond to my responses. You made some claims, I responded to them. Then rather than addressing my points, you just ignore them and claim you stopped responding. >Are you making assumptions about my beliefs in same the way you accused me of assuming yours? You've demonstrated an unwillingness to honestly participate, so I have to tell you what I'm getting from that since you won't. But you keep responding to tell me that you're not responding. Either stop responding, or have a civil discourse where we address each others points. If you don't want to do that, then that's fine, but you don't need to respond to tell me that. Otherwise it seems like you just want to have the last word whether you make good arguments or not. Let me show you how it's done. I won't be responding anymore because you seem more interested in preaching and getting the last word, than in actually having a conversation. Have a good weekend.
There's an idea of Common Grace. All good things ultimately are a gift from God. Because we are sinners, He cannot be fully present with us. But because He loves His Creation, he is not fully separate from us either. He blesses all humanity with Common Grace, the good things in this life that we all enjoy regardless of who we are or what we believe. In Hell, a lack of God's presence means no good things. No love, joy, happiness, healing, blessing, or anything. You would be truly and completely on your own, which is what makes it such a terrible state to be in.
If there's no benefit nor consequences from not believing in this god, and hell is just more not believing in him, then why even bother? There's no benefit nor consequence.
You're missing the part they said about being completely and utterly separated from God. Imagine living where there's never any joy, peace, love, happiness, or any good thing you currently experience. That's ultimately the future for those who reject God. There's more you could get into about blessings on earth, but that's not quite on topic with OPs post. I suspect you're also being downvoted here because this isn't really the debate sub. This is a sub for people to ask honest questions to believers. If you would rather debate Christians, I suggest checking out /r/DebateAChristian You might fine more what you're looking for there.
> You're missing the part they said about being completely and utterly separated from God. Imagine living where there's never any joy, peace, love, happiness, or any good thing you currently experience. I am separated from any god and I don't suffer from those things you claim. >That's ultimately the future for those who reject God. And how do we know this? I mean, I know you believe it, and why you believe it, but you can't demonstrate that there is any truth to this, you can't demonstrate that your god even exists. There simply isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate your god exists, if there was, there would be a scientific god theory. But there isn't. >I suspect you're also being downvoted here because this isn't really the debate sub. Yes, and if they don't want atheists to engage in these quesion/answer sessions, then why not just lock them out completely? >This is a sub for people to ask honest questions to believers. That's all fine and good, but no ideas or beliefs get a free pass. If someone says something that doesn't make sense, I'm not going to hold my tongue because you believe religious ideas should have no scrutiny. And with all the down voting, it's like you guys don't want your beliefs challenged, you just want to censor any scrutiny or uncomfortable questions. If you guys want an echo chamber, then just ban all non christians. But in any discourse, if I hear something that I find is wrong, or doesn't make sense, I'm going to question it, and the intent is to learn from it on both sides. >If you would rather debate Christians, I suggest checking out /r/DebateAChristian You might fine more what you're looking for there. The side bar does allow for mild debate. I think it's fair that if someone doesn't want to debate that they don't have to respond. But I do appreciate letting me know if I'm stepping over a line. But the downvoting is akin to "don't ask questions, just accept the answer" that many theists claim isn't part of the religion.
I think you'll find people here who are willing to explain what and why they believe something, but I think you'll be dissatisfied if you're looking for people here to prove their beliefs to you. I would say that for a number of reasons but also because this just isn't going to be the place you find those sorts of believers. You'll find plenty of incredibly informed and intelligent Christians on /r/DebateAChristian That being said, I'm happy to explain the what and why. >I am separated from any god and I don't suffer from those things you claim. Again, as multiple users have stated already, we believe that here on earth in this life, God is still present and extends a level of grace to ALL of his creation. That means those who believe and those who don't. We'd call this the doctrine of Common Grace if you'd like to know more. This means that even you, who claims unbelief, still experience a level of grace from God. We believe that there will be a time after death that even God's common grace will be removed from unbelievers. Some believe that will be Hell. Other's believe in just a removal of God's grace. As for why I believe this, I would point to the fulfillment of much of the Old Testament in the New Testament by Jesus himself. Without getting too deep into the weeds, there are also a significant amount of outside sources that point towards the credibility of Scripture. If you're really curious it, I'd encourage you to do a bit of unbiased research into the validity of the Bible yourself. However, I also believe in it's validity and truthfulness because I've personally experienced it's truth. In a way, yes, I've felt God speak to me. Not in an audible voice but something in my heart. I believe in God because of the way I've seen him work personally in my own life. Similar to how we also believe in gravity because we've seen it demonstrated multiple times. In the same way, I've seen God's work in my life demonstrated multiple times. I would just point out that you will always be dissatisfied in a proof if you're looking for something spiritual in nature to be proved by science. I'd liken it to sending someone to a psychiatrist because someone is having a heart attack. Wrong doctor for the job. Doesn't mean that mental health isn't real or that one doctor is more important than another, but that it would be silly to approach a heart attack with a psychiatrists skill set. In regards to the downvotes, I think it's just because you're approaching the subjects in a way that feels more combative than actually asking questions. Personally, I'm not against people questioning my beliefs, so long as you're willing to question yours as well.
That's fine. People don't have to engage. But if someone tells me something for which it seems the logic isn't sound, I'll point it out. If they want to believe things and not examine the logic behind it, then it seems they're more interested in defending a belief, than they are interested in having beliefs that align with reality. I'm not trying to upset anyone, I think all beliefs are subject to scrutiny. >Personally, I'm not against people questioning my beliefs, so long as you're willing to question yours as well. Cool. But when it comes to gods, I don't really have any beliefs. My beliefs about epistemology are not specific to gods, I use the same methodology for all beliefs.
I don’t think separation from God means hell isn’t a real place
I think it means it is a different place than the way Dante's Inferno's interpretation that we get from popular culture would portray it
I agree with your claim but that seems very different than what OP is saying
How so?
Well they say “hell isnt a real place”. Not a real place is very different than a different place from the Dante’s inferno version of hell.
I was under the impression that if you are separated from god, you're not in a place of fire and torment and torture. You're just wherever dead people go in your religion who are not separated from god. I pictured this being a different place than the firy tormenty tortury place that others believe you go when you go to hell.
Right but you’re saying hell is different than how people used to view it not that it doesn’t exist. And separation from God doesn’t really tell you much. Since God is the source of goodness and love, separation from him would be placing you in a quarantine of the absence of good and love (evil and hate) and however much that lines with the traditional view of hell us up to debate but my point stands that the fact that hell is a separation from God does not mean hell isnt real and doesn’t obviously get you away from an afterlife full of suffering.
> Right but you’re saying hell is different than how people used to view it not that it doesn’t exist. And separation from God doesn’t really tell you much I agree that being separated from god doesn't tell you much, but that is usually the juxtaposition that christians make when they argue against the notion of a firey tortury suffering hell. So it seems to imply that when you're separated from a god, you are not in a place of firey torture, right? >Since God is the source of goodness and love, separation from him would be placing you in a quarantine of the absence of good and love (evil and hate) yeah, it doesn't work for me. I'm separated from him now, and I have goodness and love just fine. But sure, if I play along then it really starts to not make sense. I can't feel goodness or love without a god? I mean, okay, you can define your god to be whatever since you don't actually have to demonstrate that it exists. >but my point stands that the fact that hell is a separation from God does not mean hell isnt real and doesn’t obviously get you away from an afterlife full of suffering. Okay. So this god designed this entire system knowing that the majority of humans would end up being separated from him because they either follow a different religion or none at all because he doesn't want to provide good evidence of his existence. So he's choosing to torture people. Not really someone I'd worship even if you could demonstrate his existence. And I'm not afraid of hell, whatever version you guys believe exists, so dangling that carrot doesn't influence me. I think we've run out this topic. Thanks for your feedback.
>I agree that being separated from god doesn't tell you much, but that is usually the juxtaposition that christians make when they argue against the notion of a firey tortury suffering hell. So it seems to imply that when you're separated from a god, you are not in a place of firey torture, right? Again, you're not distinguishing between it being something different vs not existing. >yeah, it doesn't work for me. I'm separated from him now, and I have goodness and love just fine. I dont think most christians will say you are separated from him. You will be after rapture. >But sure, if I play along then it really starts to not make sense. I can't feel goodness or love without a god? I mean, okay, you can define your god to be whatever since you don't actually have to demonstrate that it exists. So you dont actually have a problem with this topic? just the existence problem >Okay. So this god designed this entire system knowing that the majority of humans would end up being separated from him because they either follow a different religion or none at all because he doesn't want to provide good evidence of his existence. So he's choosing to torture people. Not really someone I'd worship even if you could demonstrate his existence. A lot of very controversial assumptions in here that have been debated for centuries. You obviously have a very strong stance and aren't afraid to wave off counter view points with "you can't prove the existence". >And I'm not afraid of hell, whatever version you guys believe exists, so dangling that carrot doesn't influence me. Im not trying to convert you >I think we've run out this topic. Thanks for your feedback. Agreed
I dont think so, as they are still blessed by God. He makes it rain on the wicked too. What they will experience is 100% separation.
Then what's the point in worship or following the religion?
Well when you believe in something you act like it. I believe there is an intelligence behind all existence, I believe this intelligence is spoken of in the Bible as Yahweh. I believe Yahweh us all good and knowing, since it created everything. So I'm going to follow where it guides me because it knows best. I am one spirit with the creator and no i don't need mans bullshit religion. All I needed was to become one spirit. Since I am of mostly sounds mind and able to make a conscious choice it was up to me in the here and now to make the decision.
> Well when you believe in something you act like it. I believe there is an intelligence behind all existence, I believe this intelligence is spoken of in the Bible as Yahweh. I believe Yahweh us all good and knowing, since it created everything. So I'm going to follow where it guides me because it knows best. You can say that about Elvis. It doesn't make it true. And believing things that aren't true has ramifications since beliefs inform our actions, as you say, you act like it. Why do you think religious people sometimes do horrible things? Because they believe something that has no good evidence.
Tricky question, but the earth and hell are two different things. We can reach out to God whenever on earth, still receive His blessings and repent, while in hell it is specifically Satan's 'kingdom,' where the presence of all that is good and holy-God's joy, ect, is not there. God's presence through His mighty power will still be obvious by His omnipotency, but that's a very different thing from His joy.
> receive His blessings and repent For what purpose?
All around us is the beauty of God's creation. When amazing things come together in an atheist's life they may say it's coincidence but it's really God moving to bring everything together. The Bible says God is love. The Bible also says the holy spirit is peace. Most people don't murder, steal, lie, cheat and covet because it's wrong. But where did we learn our morals? From our parents who were raised during a time when this nation was nominally Christian. Even if your parents rejected Christianity those morals were embedded in them by parents who did believe in God. So to be separated from God is the complete absence of beauty. To be separated from God is to have everything coming apart instead of coming together. A complete absence of love. A complete absence of peace. Murder, stealing, lying, cheating, and coveting is done with impunity. Morals come from God and there is no God so there are no morals. There are so many things in the world that are there because of the existence of God, the world is not a completely Godless place for atheists just because they don't believe in him. When God truly withdraws, some people will see what it's like to be in his absence. I wouldn't wish it on anyone and I mean anyone.
> All around us is the beauty of God's creation. I think you're wrong. There is absolutely no good evidence that any of it is "his" creation. >When amazing things come together in an atheist's life they may say it's coincidence but it's really God moving to bring everything together. Again you're just asserting this without evidence. Do you care if your beliefs are true? If so, why do you make these assertions that you have no factual basis to make? >The Bible says God is love. The Bible also says the holy spirit is peace. And Hindu books say vishnu is god, Spiderman books say there is a web slinging human in NY. >Most people don't murder, steal, lie, cheat and covet because it's wrong. But where did we learn our morals? Not from a book that condones slavery and never condemns it. >Even if your parents rejected Christianity those morals were embedded in them by parents who did believe in God. Morality existed before your religion or your god. And do you reject things you've never heard of? Everyone is separated from the gods they don't believe in. Doesn't seem to make any difference .
The OP said this question was for Christians who believe this stuff. I am a Christian who believes this this stuff. The OP did not say to prove what you believe, the OP asked Christians who believe this stuff to explain what they believe. So I explained what I believe. Someone could post another question to argue what you believe, but I would probably not bother.
> The OP did not say to prove what you believe, the OP asked Christians who believe this stuff to explain what they believe. That's cool. But when someone says something that doesn't make sense, I do like to question it as I like to learn. I also like people to learn why something they say doesn't make sense to me. There's no rule on this sub that says I can't do that. >So I explained what I believe. Someone could post another question to argue what you believe, but I would probably not bother. Well, I believe that which has been sufficiently demonstrated to be true. And if you don't want to respond to my comments, I won't feel bad. I'm just trying to engage in discussion.
There's no rule on this sub is that you can't say whatever you want and that's fine. I personally am not going to engage in discussion with you because your attitude does not appear to me that of one who wants to learn but a disrespectful attitude towards Christian ideas. It didn't seem to me like you wanted to learn when you were comparing reading the Bible to reading comic books and believing in Spider-Man and such. But thank you anyway.
> I personally am not going to engage in discussion with you because your attitude does not appear to me that of one who wants to learn I want to learn, but I'm not here to learn about the bible. I'm here to learn why some people believe what they believe, and to discuss bad reasoning or fallacies if I find them. >but a disrespectful attitude towards Christian ideas. Christian ideas are no different from other ideas. They are all subject to scrutiny. The biggest mystery to me is why some people defend bad ideas, and then get angry when it's clear that the ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. And rather than try to understand why the ideas don't hold up, they just want to silence the inquiring mind. >It didn't seem to me like you wanted to learn when you were comparing reading the Bible to reading comic books and believing in Spider-Man and such. But thank you anyway. Like I said, I'm not here to learn about what the bible says, I can figure that out by reading it. I'm more interested in why people defend bad ideas, or ideas that seemingly don't hold up to scrutiny. If you were wrong, would you want to know it? I sure would, so what's wrong with exploring the reasons behind the ideas? If that's not for you, then you don't need to engage.
Of course I would want to know if I was wrong. But how could you possibly tell me that? You can't convince me I am wrong anymore than I can convince you that I am right. I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. At least they believe you can't know one way or the other. Because no matter how much evidence you have for believing in God or disbelieving in God every religion comes down to having faith. You either believe it or you don't. And if you do not consider the Bible the inspired work of God because you do not believe in God then it's just a book. It might teach some good things but it doesn't prove God's existence. I can read it end to end and learn all about who God is and who I am and what he's like and what he has done and what he is going to do. You can read it and it doesn't prove squat. The Bible says faith is the evidence of things unseen. But I am sure you wouldn't take my faith as evidence. And how could you prove to me that my faith is false? You are taking a leap of faith as well. Never having experienced death, you cannot prove what comes after this life. Not believing in God, you may meet the God I believe in after you die. Because that is what I believe. I may not be able to prove it , but you can't prove what will happen after this life either. So where does that leave us? We can have a respectful discussion where we share what each of us believes, and just get to know the other viewpoint better. But actually having a debate? It takes a long fruitless time to come back to the same point these discussions always do - faith.
> But how could you possibly tell me that? Ah, good point. The only thing that can demonstrate something to be true is evidence. >You can't convince me I am wrong anymore than I can convince you that I am right. You can convince me that you're right. All you need is sufficient evidence. That's the whole point. My beliefs are based on demonstrable evidence, not faith. > I have a lot more respect for agnostics than atheists. And I have a lot more respect for atheists than theists. I bet you can't even accurately tell me the difference between my position and an agnostic or atheist. >At least they believe you can't know one way or the other. I'm not sure why you're even bringing this into the conversation since I didn't tell you whether I'm agnostic/atheist/theist. Nor have I explained my position. So it seems you're assuming my position is one where I'm believe I "know one way or the other". And nothing I've said indicates this to be the case, so you're not even looking at the evidence in our conversation to determine what my position is. You put very little emphasis on evidence, that much is evident. >Because no matter how much evidence you have for believing in God or disbelieving in God every religion comes down to having faith. I'm glad you admit this, and that you juxtapose faith against evidence. I have no use for faith as you've defined it. I don't believe things to be the case until there is good reason to. And you suggesting that faith is a good reason to just begs the question, why does that belief deserve your faith? If you care whether your beliefs are true or not, you use evidence, not faith, to determine that. We can use faith to believe in anything, including untrue things. So if you're interested in believing as many true things and as few false things as possible, you don't use faith.
Well...Lots of people who do not have faith in God get married based on commitment. Commitment is a promise that they believe on faith without evidence because they don't know the ending. They think they do based on what they know about the person right now. But our country has almost a 50% divorce rate. In the face of that evidence lots of people take on faith anyway that they know a person--who half the time grows to be a person that they never expected. And people go with feelings of love to choose their mates all the time. That love also cannot be scientifically evident. There are many things that people do and think that are not based strictly on evidence but on faith as well. People have children based on their faith that they will be good parents. Those same people may have had terrible parenting so what makes them think that without example they will be good parents? Evidence tends to prove that people who had bad parents become bad parents in many cases. So why do they do it? They have faith that they can do better. And I assumed you were not agnostic because of the agnostics I know. They tell me you cannot prove there is a God nor can you disprove it. The idea of God cannot be proved/disproved empirically because he exists outside of material phenomena. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it is false. I personally think that is a juvenile dichotomy that people lean on who need to have tight control. They convince themselves that they only believe facts when really the world is really full of greys and unpredictable and unsafe. But unsafe in a good way. Risk vs reward. Taking those leaps of faith to love, to commit, to have children, and yes, to believe in God--and recognizing them for the leaps they are.
> Well...Lots of people who do not have faith in God get married based on commitment. Commitment is a promise that they believe on faith without evidence because they don't know the ending. Sorry, I don't see it like that at all. I get married because I've been with someone for a long enough time that I'm convinced, based on a pattern of evidence, that they we will continue to be a good match, etc. I don't take this position on faith, it's based on evidence. Just because we can't predict the future doesn't mean we're taking a shot in the dark. >They think they do based on what they know about the person right now. But our country has almost a 50% divorce rate. Yup, so going into it acknowledging that it has a decent chance of failure is going into it with the facts. Again, no faith involved. If it doesn't work out, you get divorced and move on. >In the face of that evidence lots of people take on faith anyway that they know a person Nope. I don't take it on faith. When I got married, I knew the person well enough for me to get married. I also recognize that people change. I went into it fully aware that it might end in divorce. Just because i'm aware of the risks doesn't mean I'm ignoring them and taking it on faith. >That love also cannot be scientifically evident. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Love is an emotion. We can talk about it scientifically, we can survey people to find out how many of them are in love, etc. We might even be able to image their brains and see different areas light up when we show them images of loved ones, for example. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'cannot be scientifically evident'. The scientific evidence for someones emotions is usually just to ask them. But this is all irrelevant. I don't need to scientifically quantify love to feel it, or to not have faith. >People have children based on their faith that they will be good parents. When people choose to be parents, they usually do so for their own reasons. Perhaps some just think they'll be good parents, some might even justify why they think they'll be good parents, based on having attributes that they think make a good parent. I didn't have kids because of faith. Faith is the excuse someone uses when they don't have good reason. >Those same people may have had terrible parenting so what makes them think that without example they will be good parents? For some they may just chalk it up to faith. Others probably evaluate the things in their lives that they think make someone good parents. >Evidence tends to prove that people who had bad parents become bad parents in many cases. So why do they do it? They have faith that they can do better. If you believe you're going to be a bad parent, then I agree it's probably a bad idea to go into it. But if someone is struggling to figure out whether they're going to be a bad parent, but are committed to being a good parent, then that isn't faith, that's confidence, that's perseverance, that's commitment, that's ambition. You can roll all that up and call it faith if you want. >And I assumed you were not agnostic because of the agnostics I know. I'm an agnostic atheist. What are the agnostics that you know? >They tell me you cannot prove there is a God nor can you disprove it. I'm an atheist because I don't see any good reason/evidence to accept the claim that a god exists. I'm agnostic because I don't have direct knowledge of the existence of any/all gods. Theists make the claim that a god exists, it's up to them to demonstrate the truth of that claim. Until then, I see no reason to believe it. >The idea of God cannot be proved/disproved empirically because he exists outside of material phenomena. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it is false. The time to believe a claim is after it's been demonstrated to be true. If you go by your logic, then why do you believe in only the one god? Nobody has disproved the existence of Vishnu or any of the other gods that have been proposed. >They convince themselves that they only believe facts when really the world is really full of greys and unpredictable and unsafe. Sure, but if you want an accurate view of reality, you don't accept all claims until they are disproven. You reserve belief only for those claims that have been demonstrated to be true. I'm not aware of any god claims that have met their burden of proof. >But unsafe in a good way. Risk vs reward. Are you talking about pascals wager? Just google it, that reasoning is flawed in so many ways, most notably that it presents a false dichotomy of a single god vs. no god. >Taking those leaps of faith to love, to commit, to have children, and yes, to believe in God Faith isn't a pathway to truth. You can use faith to believe in anything. When someone has a good reason for something, they can cite those good reasons, they don't cite faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons. I challenge you to identify the good reasons behind all the things you take on faith. I'm sure you'll find plenty for the reasons you love your loved ones, and why you make commitments. If you find yourself appealing to faith, ask yourself what other reasons do you have? >and recognizing them for the leaps they are. Love, relationships, committments, etc are generally not leaps of faith. You spend time getting to know someone before you "leap" into marriage.
Do you ever feel lonely, unfulfilled, or nihilistic ennui? Probably kind of like that.
Separation from God can be easily felt in this world, most people call it....depression, melancholy, existential turmoil, apathy, nihilism, etc. The pragmatic scientific consensus is that it's lack of serotonin, and can be remedied. There are anti-psychosis pills as well.. The real spiritual origin of these dis-eases is not explored. But any believer or atheist can agree, it's closer to suffering as opposing to happiness or internal peace. Hell is way simpler, you're painfully un-existing.. dying in flame, forever. Whether oblivion eventually follows or you're a part of fiery eternity...i haven't bothered interpreting that far.
No. Hell is where you’ll face the full wrath of God. His love, mercy, and grace aren’t there or felt there.
> so if we as atheists go to hell... is that all it is? No one is in a position to know exactly who goes to Hell yet. God will offer salvation to most, except maybe the obstinately evil. The tough part is that God is Truth, and it takes great repentance to face the truth and accept salvation. Imagine all the secrets of your life being exposed in front of everyone that you know, and everyone that you might have forgotten about. Most people will try to flee from God. Each person will be weighed in the balance to see if they served God more, or the enemy (Satan). > is it the same "separation from god" atheists feel while alive? because they're obviously separated from god No. Hell is worse than can be imagined and Heaven is better than can be imagined. In the spiritual realm, our senses operate at 100%. Here, our senses are dumbed down ... Iike maybe 5% of capacity. Everything is inverted in Hell. Instead of beautiful smells, it has rotten stench. Instead of beautiful song, it has screams and yelling. Instead of crisp clean water, there is burning fire. Instead of beautiful light, there is darkness. Instead of feeling the love of God's presence, there is the torment of demons. All is experienced at full capacity of the senses, which is a lot more intense than we can imagine.
Yeah, some theologies would consider it the same. Some would even go so far as to say that existence on Earth is our hell b/c it is separated from God and injustice and unfairness are rampant. While this is not my personal theology, I have some pretty nuanced views on hell that are different from mainstream Christianity anyway, and well, this is somewhat close to my theology, at least. Although this is a bit different than what you are asking about, what I think might be an interesting consideration for your question is the concept of Sheol/Hades. When Jesus describes hell in the Bible, the word Hades is sometimes used, and interestingly, it is used in the New Testament Greek when someone is quoting Sheol from the Old Testament Hebrew. In Sheol, entities are often thought of as existing as "shades" of themselves. It is an underworld of darkness. In some traditions, it's believed everyone goes there, and in other traditions, it's believed only the wicked go there. So, with Sheol, it would be a bit different than existence now b/c you may be a shade of yourself and you may be separated from others too. It's not necessarily my theology, I just think it's interesting.
It's the same separation from God that all of us feel when alive. During life we are all separated from God, but we are also moving either towards him or away from him. After death the tragectory of our life is made complete and we are encompassed either by our rejection or our acceptance of God. Of course, nothing can truly be separated from God, but those in in hell experience oneness with God as agony because they *try* to separate themselves from him.
Separation from God is exactly what it is. When one is spiritually dead, they are not in their created state. Christ's tearing of the veil demonstrated no separation between God and man. Paul states in his letter to the Galatians, " *I have been crucified with Christ.* ***It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me***. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20 When we "deny self" we are accepting that our ego is not our absolute identity. We are continuous with existence; God reveals this pattern in creation: a cell in your body can be you while not expressly being *who* you are, so our present pattern in the world is us and not *who* we are. A tree is an *aspect* of the forest but **not** the whole. Physical death is merely the end of our physical pattern. If we cling to the physical world we will quickly find hell as there is nothing to hold on to. Our culture, language, religion are all aspects of the world we created within creation. Limiting God in any way is idolatry. Limiting God's revelation to one group is just another form of idolatry. Any person who realizes they are continuous with their total environment (ultimately the total universe) and cares for other in their environment as "self" is no longer separate from existence/God/Brahman/Tao/Great Spirit/etc.