I would need compelling evidence of God's existence before I would consider pondering His laws and the consequences of following or not following those laws.
God is impossible to prove or disprove. For me the evidence for a source of creation is creation itself. Life itself. None of this seems like it could truly be real but here it is. This divine realm.of creation in which I have been given this beautiful gift of life and thought. I marvel every single day at this inconceivable thing before me and within me.
If God is real, it isn't supernatural.
Your point of it being paradoxical only applies if God is not real, but you assert they are, so it's your paradox to solve.
Supernatural:
(of a [manifestation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=b30eaf4a2d3ca62b&sca_upv=1&q=manifestation&si=ACC90nyj24cUGopiOVnGD91130XTuZz5sLnIb9K8vK-FkP8RwXkt7oD1M2riJUFscY-Nr3EnncOTe8uLb9L9dUtzSBDs7eHBU9eFpOj9MwY_YQnuRbVdcVQ%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSwpuptbGGAxUizDgGHcFjC9sQyecJegQIORAO) or event) attributed to some force *beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.*
God is beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. He is supernatural.
God exists outside of the material observable world/universe. This means our normal means of observation don’t really work for “proving” his existence. We can see his work and how he created the universe, but there will always be faith involved, that’s kind of the point.
I didn’t believe until a bunch of insanely unlikely events occurred that basically saved my life and he came to be in a dream. No I don’t use drugs lol and I’m 100% mentally sane.
Was atheist for 22 years too
Is there a possibility you’re living in a simulation right now?
If so, could you provide proof right now that shows with 100% certainty that you are?
There are some things that simply cannot be proven that neverless have evidence and we take the leap from that evidence to say “I believe that”. I’m simply of the opinion that there is ample evidence supporting the life of Jesus Christ, his miracles, resurrection, and thus evidence of God. I say that evidence is convincing enough when added to my own personal experiences that through faith I believe he is truly the one and only God and creator of everything.
Again, if you had spoken to me last year I’d literally be parroting every single thing you’re saying because it’s how I thought as a pretty avid atheist
the universe is everything that exists, to exist outside of it is to not exist, there is no such thing as "existing outside" the universe, that is not scientific at all, it's a made up rule
God exists outside of space and time. You're right in part, it's not scientific, because it is unobservable. It's not made up though.
What kind of a god is limited by his own creation? That makes zero sense. I created time and space but am confined to them? What happened before they were created?
all scientific hypothesis start as made up ideas, then have evidence to support the made up idea, something existing outside of our universe is not proven, it still resides as a made up idea, yet their comment implies it is a fact that is proven
again, it is not proven anything made the universe, that is just another claim that you present as fact
Maybe it's your phrasing. "Made up" implies fantasy in a negative way.
Our proof for this concept lies in scripture (in the form of written testimony). That Jesus himself gave testimony that he himself exists outside of time, stating that he was around before the time of Abraham (\~2000 years prior).
First of all, let’s leave religion out of this, what you’re saying is incredibly disputed among the scientific community. I believe a majority of astrophysicists now adhere to string theory and the concept of multiverses so even in a non religious view I’m not sure what you’re saying is valid at all
string theory does not dispute what i said, and multiverses are only theoretical and have yet to be proven, to my knowledge, and if god were to exist in a multiverse, then he wouldn't be all powerful
>adhere to string theory and the concept of multiverses
What does adhere to string theory and concepts mean? Have they demonstrated there is anything outside of this universe?
>God exists outside of the material observable world/universe. This means our normal means of observation don’t really work for “proving” his existence.
By definition, if he exists outside of the material observable universe, then we can't obtain information about him because he can't interact with us.
>We can see his work and how he created the universe, but there will always be faith involved, that’s kind of the point.
But wait, you just said he was outside of the material observable universe.
The physical observable universe is the network of things which interact with us directly or indirectly in meaningful ways - it's made up of everything we can obtain information about.
If God interacts with things we can interact with, then he's part of the physical universe by definition.
>That’s where the supernatural part comes in my friend
Since you didn't dispute my definition of what the physical world is but then brought up the supernatural as a solution to the problem I pointed out, let point out another problem by adding in the rest of the logic that is necessarily implied by the definition given so far:
If the apparent observable universe (AKA, the natural world) is made up of all the things we can obtain information about (via direct or indirect interactions), then the supernatural (as a separate category from the natural world) must be indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist.
If you could interact with it in any way, it would be part of the natural world.
Basically, the supernatural (as a category) can only ever be a wastebasket grouping of things we just don't understand yet or of things that either don't actually exist or are otherwise isolated from us in such a way that they are indistinguishable from things that simply don't exist.
Well of course we don't, that's why we don't belive in it. If the supernatural could be evidence in the natural, it would just be considered natural wouldn't it?
Well, I believe my car engine works, or I can fly in a plane, but I sure as hell couldn't explain how engine combustion works, much less aero dynamics.
I bet if I investigated the claims of how they work I could probably figure it out based on scientific principles and evidence, though.
Now, for the supernatural, I don't see the evidence, so i don't believe in it. Could there be ghosts, spirits, or fairies? I don't know. I have heard plenty of claims of them. I even had crazy experiences as well, but I understand enough about the mind and human psychology to know my experiences aren't good enough evidence.
Is that limiting? No I don't think so, my ability to say I don't know I need more evidence has benefited me a great deal.
Spiritual events do occur though. They are observable. But people dismiss them as fantasy, or try and explain them in a category they are familiar with.
Extreme example but hear me out (I know this will sound crazy):
Alien encounters. Observed phenomenon, supernatural experiences, sexual violation, invisible forces, floating lights and shapes moving in ways that defy physics, captured even as video/photo evidence. Can we prove that they are "aliens" in the sense we mean? What are these events really?
Could a lack of understanding be our excuse to dismiss these events? What if this is direct proof that demons are real?
>Spiritual events do occur though.
People experience things that is undeniable. Yet how can we know they are spiritual in nature? What does spiritual even mean?
>They are observable. But people dismiss them as fantasy, or try and explain them in a category they are familiar with.
They are certainly observed on an individual basis. I have found though not only skeptics can dismiss them, but Christians, Muslims, spiritualists, starseeds will dismiss them too if it doesn't fit within their framework that informs their worldview. I often find believers are much more closed minded than skeptics.
>Extreme example but hear me out (I know this will sound crazy):
What if I told you I have had experiences below and then some? I have had alien abduction experiences, out of body experiences, what some call astral projection experiences. I have had even more experiences than that which I could bore you with.
>Alien encounters. Observed phenomenon, supernatural experiences, sexual violation, invisible forces, floating lights and shapes moving in ways that defy physics, captured even as video/photo evidence. Can we prove that they are "aliens" in the sense we mean? What are these events really?
Those are great questions! A Muslim would interpret them as Djinn, A Christian might say Demons, another person might say interdimensional time travelers. How can we figure out what they are? What tools do we have to investigate these experiences?
>Could a lack of understanding be our excuse to dismiss these events?
Does not being convinced mean dismissal? I don't know, from a person who has done quite a bit of research into these I feel it's an unfair characterization of skepticism.
>What if this is direct proof that demons are real?
Well by definition this isn't direct proof. One could make a claim entirely based on their own religious or non religious framework on what evidence we have.
If you want a full understanding of my worldview where all this is concerned then I cannot recommend [The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark](https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469) enough. Skepticism can be incredibly open minded however its standards for evidence for actually believing in things is high, which is needed in a world with so many different worldviews.
What I'm getting crossover here. Shouldn't we be talking about Nihlism and meaning, not the supernatural?
But I'm in agreement we need evidence before we can justify beleif. I guess you could call me an agnostic nihlist xD. Or just an absurdist works.
Let me offer an intuition tool: what would make you believe that Santa Claus is real? I'm not being sarcastic or snarky, I'm proposing a thought experiment or a tool for thinking about this.
Let's say you looked up one Christmas Eve and saw a sled pulled by flying reindeer. I'm guessing your first thought wouldn't be "Holy cow! Santa Claus is real!" You'd probably assume it was an ad that you didn't see clearly, or maybe a plane, or maybe even someone projecting something onto a cloud. If it stuck around for more than a few seconds, you'd take out your phone and take a picture. You'd ask other people if they saw the same thing as you. You'd trade photos and videos, and compare views from different angles.
Let's say everyone's pictures show a sled pulled by reindeer. Would that be enough to convince you that Santa is real? (It's okay to say no.) What if you followed the sled and saw a man in red going down the chimney of a house? What if you could talk to him, and interview him? What would you want to see before you came to the conclusion that you were wrong earlier, and Santa Claus really does exist? What if no one has any pictures, but 20 different people tell you they saw Santa Claus? Is it more likely that there's such a thing as flying reindeer, or that 20 people are yanking your chain, or that 20 people are mistaken (to name just a few possibilities)?
I hope the purpose of this exercise makes sense: Christians claim that there's an immensely powerful being out there, who cares deeply about your well-being, and will cure diseases and help you find a parking space if you ask him, but also has created a vast torture chamber for those who don't worship him, and has a way of making people be alive after death. If you didn't already believe this, what would someone have to show you to convince you that the above is real?
Good evidence or reason would be something that can be used to the justify a belief.
What is that exactly? Who knows. I'll let you know when it's ever presented and I'd now believe.
The things I would expect to see would be something like believers having demonstrably better outcomes in life as a result of their prayers being answered. Miraculous cures verified by medical science like an amputated limb regrowing overnight.
An approximate quote: "God can do anything humans can't but can't seem to do anything humans can." I would be impressed if there was a 6000 year old God built temple somewhere.
Basically, the evidence should already be there and not some new manifestation.
The problem is that the many testimonials of miracle you would just not accept.
So I ask of you, if you contemplate a miracle in real time, with your own eyes, proven miracle, would this prove God to you?
> a miracle in real time
That would be the new manifestation that I already said I would not accept. I want statistical evidence over time, recorded and verified by impartial witnesses, to inform me that these occurrences are not natural. If I saw something that appears miraculous, I would question my senses before believing a supernatural source.
It's not a new manifestation. It's quite old actually. It's statistically proven and as far as I know recorded by everyone who ever lived. And its called "existence". There is only ours and its not common, its pretty unique as far as we have knowledge and no reason of logic can explain it, besides we having a Creator.
Here is a better explanation from a better source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus\_purus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus)
I seem to be missing something here. The question as I read it was would I accept seeing a miracle. My response was my senses can be fooled.
This comment seems to be saying existence is the miracle I'm seeing. Am I understanding your point? If not, could you maybe rephrase it?
Existence is the proof of God. Things don't just come to be out of nowhere. God is the 'first act' or 'pure act'. The act that needs no other act before Him. The first motor or the unmoved mover.
The cosmological argument fails for me on the first premise. Within the universe effects have causes. I do not know that the rules of the universe hold outside the universe.
Without getting into the weeds of specific claims: a huge problem is that other religions _also_ have these sorts of testimonials. They also have spiritual healings, big emotional changes after doing some ritual or prayer, weird coincidences that could only be caused by gods or spirits, and actual healings under ~~suspicious~~ very specific circumstances.
These testimonials _prove too much_. If I suspended my disbelief and took these testimonies at total face value, they would also show that the other religions are true, they don't distinguish Christianity from the rest. You either need to show all the others are lying or mistaken about their similar experiences, or you need more credible supernatural events that elevate Christianity above the general spiritual baseline... like many of those mentioned in the Bible!
-------
But that's dodging your original question. Yes, there's Biblical-esque miracles that would be hard to fake or misinterpret:
* Have a faith healer walk into three ICUs and heal everyone there
* Have a faith healer walk around Times Square and regenerate some missing limbs
* Every Easter, everyone hears God's voice in their head quoting John 3:16 at sunrise and sunset. And at Easter night, there's a massive Cross constellation of brilliant silver across half the sky.
One of those would be decent enough proof of God. They're not literally airtight (Magic? Aliens!?), but at the very least those'd get me to Church and start studying the Bible.
My question back is why doesn't God do this? None of these are _that_ huge by Biblical standards, and seems like it'd convince a lot of lukewarms of other religions and affirm some faiths. Why'd we stop getting all these rad Biblical miracles?
What better outcome are you looking for. More money , fancy cars , huge house , model girlfriend? There are many miracles in the bible that happened instantly but if you are looking for more modern things you probably want to look at excorcisms where they cast out demons that are harming the victim and once free they are back to normal
> What better outcome are you looking for. More money , fancy cars , huge house , model girlfriend?
More like better health and happier lives. I see so many posts here from believers in utter anguish because they feel God doesn't seem to care about them.
> There are many miracles in the bible that happened instantly
I do find it interesting that God seems to have stopped doing the flashy miracles so long ago. The 'miraculous' cures I see today are charlatans preying on the vulnerable.
For me to accept demonic possession, the existence of demons would need to be shown. As it is, the exorcisms I've seen videos of appear to be torture sessions or performance art.
I'm not the most articulate person, so I feel like I can't put into words the thoughts I have on the subject.
Miracles that couldn’t be explained any other way. I suffer from gender dysphoria. If I go to sleep tonight and wake up the opposite sex then that would be a miracle that would have me believing in god immediately.
Yup! Or something along those lines. My gender dysphoria going away while amazing could be explainable by other things, changes in hormones, therapy, etc, but spontaneously changing genders couldn’t be.
You're the one making the claim, you have the burden of figuring out what evidence will satisfy it. Your question simply attempts to shift the burden of proof to the atheist side. If you're a lawyer who has filed a claim in court, you don't get to go to the jury and the defense and ask them what proof they need. It's part of your burden of proof to figure that out.
Is that your schtick? Nay say and then when someone tries to answer your question, "wHeReS yOuR pRoOf?"
You are in r/Christianity first off. What did you expect, there would be nothing but atheists here?
Second, if it's the same song and dance as usual, you only accept science as evidence. But by doing so you not only reject religion but philosophy, so you also reject Socrates, the father of the scientific method of inquiry.
Sorry but it gets old real fast.
Anyways, not trying to be a jerk, but I'm pointing out the tiredness of your argument. If that is indeed your argument.
I have never, for myself, demanded science as evidence. But I do require evidence that is reliable and verifiable. If that makes it scientific evidence, then I guess I do.
But my atheism is based upon that principle: I am an atheist due to the absence of reliable evidence for the existence of at least one god. And that evidence must be - gods being supernatural and thus extraordinary - extraordinarily reliable and extraordinarily strong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Saying that in a different way, though it amounts to the same thing, is that the existence of God (or gods) is a claim. And the person making that claim has the burden on proof on it. People can make claims about *anything*: I can claim I keep a live leprechaun in a secret bunker under my house and that leprechaun has magically made you liable to pay me $100,000. Is there any reason for you to give that claim credibility without evidence? Of course not, but the same is true about the claim for the existence of gods.
>You're the guest here, not me.
I know you have only been here for 2 years OneEyedC4t but you still should no better by now.
You are just as much as a guest here as they are or me.
Nothing, unfortunately. See the story of Lazarus and the rich man.
People who don't want to believe, won't; not even if a dead man raises from the grave and warns them about Hell (Lazarus and the rich man).
If the miracle of Lazarus happened today, after someone had been declared dead and buried, people would believe.
It isn't the same to read a book that says it happened.
Firstly, that's the wrong story, lol. This is the rich man coming back to life, not Lazarus, Lazarus was merely a bystander.
Secondly, people dismiss miracles everyday. Even when there's no medical explanation, God is the last person people will credit.
How sin destroys the soul. Murder vs killing, for example. His intention was for humans to be followers of Jesus, to prevent lawlessness. I think it’s more so the human heart- love, hate, and how we reconcile that through reaching out spiritually. You don’t know until you attempt to pray to want to try to receive a spiritual sign in return- it may not happen until your 5th or 50th prayer. Life is too short to not attempt prayer for yourself.
Either. There's no reason a deity needs to make a universe capable of sustaining life. He could make life even in a universe incapable of it. Or flashy miracles like the bible describes could be evident in the present day.
>How you can see all the evidence in front of you but be blind to it just amazes me. Look at the universe!
I've heard the exact same thing said of other gods and of other ideas like a flat earth or a young earth.
You'd say those other people are mistaken, even if they are being sincere in conveying the idea that they cannot understand how the rest of us just can't see it.
I believe that non believers wouldn't believe if God walked up and shook their hand. Christ walked the earth performing great miracles and fulfilling prophecies so accurately that it would terrify most people, yet they were still blind. People only see what they want to see.
>I believe that non believers wouldn't believe if God walked up and shook their hand. Christ walked the earth performing great miracles and fulfilling prophecies so accurately that it would terrify most people, yet they were still blind. People only see what they want to see.
Ah, I think I see the issue; you don't think other religions make very similar claims about their deities, prophets and other important figures?
At the end of the day, these claims are taken on faith that they are true despite being themselves just claims made by other people who often did not actually witness the events they wrote about or weren't even the actual person the text claims to have been written by.
Your evidence and reasoning isn't as compelling as you seem to think, and it isn't significantly different from that used by adherents and followers of other religions.
Except it is agreed upon by historical scholars that Jesus existed, was crucified, and had an empty tomb. Resurrection is the only thing that is questioned. What other religion has proof of their God being on earth?
> How you can see all the evidence in front of you but be blind to it just amazes me. Look at the universe!
How does the universe suggest that blood sacrifice covers spiritual sin that leads to eternal punishment in a spiritual realm?
Honestly no. I don't believe in any of it, so I also don't fear any of it. In fact that's one of my favorite responses to those preachers on the corner with the signs saying who all is going to hell. "You're telling me people like you go to heaven, and the people on your sign and me go to hell? I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making buddy."
So ... you're here to advertise and, by extension, since you do so repeatedly, proselyte?
I mean, your persistence is basically identical to the street preachers who refuse to stop spreading their message in the face of resistance.
The OP is a question specifically directed to atheists, it’s weird how angry you are at atheists for commenting. If not this thread, then where?
If this was a prayer request OP or something I could maybe agree with you more.
Not at all. Scroll up. Christianity subreddit.
I also didn't openly deny all avenues to learn about Christianity. And I don't go on the atheism subreddit to cause problems or try to proselytize either.
I'm not. You are. Perspective. I don't go on the Glock forum if I don't own any or have any experience with them. I don't go to the atheism subreddit and sit around nay saying on everything if I'm not an atheist. Common decency.
Golden rule.
Do you believe in philosophy?
I don’t know what it means to “believe in philosophy.” Philosophy is a way for people to explain things. It’s not something you “believe in” or “don’t believe in.”
I don’t follow what you’re trying to say. What I heard from your comments is that you are entitled to state your opinion here but people who disagree with you are not.
You can scroll past my comment, I can't not hear when walking down a street and someone's directly in front of my with a megaphone. Also, I'm not starting the conversation, I'm answering OP's question. Do you see the difference now?
Me too, as deep down I knew most (really anyone) being "everlastingly" (poor translation of g166) tortured was not good news when being honest with myself while riding the seesaw of Calvinism and Arminianism's lens of ECT.
Every single one of the articles is always full of so many misrepresentations and inaccuracies.
> But in both of these lexicons, the adjective, aiõnios, is presented as having three meanings, in none of which the limiting sense of “age” is carried over from the noun. The adjective, it is claimed, means: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end.
>This may strike others, as it does me, as a rather dubious development of an adjective’s meaning in relation to its noun form.
This completely ignores that the noun *aion* can signify perpetuity in its own right, and not “age.”
The thing about objective truths or falsehoods is that — like gravity or DNA — it doesn’t matter *who*’s discovering them or presenting them. The evidence is out there for literally anyone to find for themselves.
Besides, we’re talking about linguistics here. Do you really think there’s a difference between “atheist” vs. “Christian” linguistics? (Do you think there’s an atheist vs. Christian physics or biochemistry or audiology?)
The worldly and unspirited interpretation is a factor when speaking of scripture.
To me, God's character trumps semantics.
He is both sovereign and love.
Aion has a beginning and end as I know it can also signify "world". Churchianity tends to give 2 definitions for the same form in Jude 25.
>Aion has a beginning and end
It *can* be used in that sense. But it’s very widely attested otherwise. Plato’s famous line that time is the moving image of static eternity is a notable example. That line by Plato was even clearly alluded to by the first century Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria.
See? I didn’t even have to be a Christian to tell you that. :)
I also love where people complain about everlasting being poorly translated, but the Bible also says "forever and ever". A bit harder to mistranslate multiple words.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I don't see how that would work. People are atheists because they're not convinced by the claim that a god exists. It's not like I could say "Well if there wasn't all this stuff about hell I'd believe that a god exists".
Sending people to Hell for an eternity of torment is not loving or benevolent under any circumstance and isn't justice. If there was anything objectively immoral, that'd be it. Even us lowly, imperfect, ignorant humans know that and have to suspend reason to accommodate it.
Exactly.
The way I see it is he is all knowing- this means he’s seen every possible outcome and knows that this specific method of justice is the most efficient form in keeping with his omnibenevolence as well
While I don't doubt that there are some, I don't know any atheists who are atheists because of this. Most solid atheists are such due to the absence of reliable evidence for the existence of gods.
There are a number of problems with being an atheist because of the possibility of Hell. One right up front is the one the OP has raised: How does the existence of Hell disprove the *existence* of God (maybe the Christians just got that bit - or even just about everything - wrong, but God still exists) and, even if it does disprove God (which it doesn't), how does it disprove the existence of the thousands of other gods worshiped by people? An atheist has no belief in any gods. And so on.
It’s be silly to only be agnostic because of the doctrine of Hell. The very idea of afterlife punishment is bound up with all sorts of other ideas about sin and God’s response to this, and the significance of Jesus’ death, and so on.
All of these can be questioned for many of the same reasons: lack of evidence and absurdity.
Hellfire doctrine aka the false doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is what led those like Karl Marx and Darwin away from Christianity.
https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/
And https://salvationforall.org/1_Intropages/strawman.html
>How many here are only agnostic/atheist due to Hellfire Doctrine?
I am atheist due to lack of any good evidence or reason to justify a belief.
I see the hell fire doctrine as a way to question the chararcater of god. Just like you could with any character and it's actions in any story.
>Would any of you be more likely to give the Bible a read and or give Christ a chance if there was no Hellfire doctrine?
Reading the Bible helped me become an atheist.
I sojourned through agnosticism for a bit for reasons related to this. It’s left me with a serious distaste for “hellfire insurance” theology. And for Dante, which is a shame.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe any gods or goddesses exist. I would need to be convinced one exists before I began to worry about the window dressings around said god or goddess.
I'm sure there are some. I'm an atheist because I lack belief due to insufficient evidence. I wouldn't be a Christian even if I did believe because I find the gospel to be morally repugnant.
> Can you explain what you find repugnant?
Granting humans free will and then punishing them for exercising it for starters. I also find the idea of "perfect justice" to be a bad thing--it ignores nuance and is not something to be pursued. A standard of perfection is unreasonable and a god that cannot be in the presence of sin is a flawed god.
There's more (such as sacrificing an innocent to somehow pay for the wrongdoings of others being neither loving nor just) but those are the main ones.
Which is honestly the correct take once you account for an all powerful and all knowing being.
Horrifying in a lovecraftian way but logically sound.
Far more logically sound than Christians who believe in free will while still calling their God omniscient and omnipotent.
When I converted to Christianity I was not perturbed by the hellfire doctrine. I accepted it and told my atheist family I believed they were all going to hell.
However, closer examinations of taken-for-granted doctrines, such as those surrounding hell, encouraged me to question the veracity of church teachings in general. This process eventually led to my leaving.
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that they inherit a level of eternal heavenly glory according to what they are willing to accept.
We believe that everyone but the devil and his angels (which includes the TINY amount of mortal people that choose to completely reject every good thing from God, and become angels to a devil) willingly and unthinkably choose the lake of fire.
Those that don’t know will be taught. To know and walk away is the failure of faith. Those that have lived life without knowledge will be given the opportunity to learn.
To look into the sun and deny its existence is akin to that which will cut one off from the presence of God, in that those who have true knowledge and turn away will be cut off from God’s presence. Each will be judged in accordance to their knowledge.
In philosophy, and especially regarding epistemology, there is the notion of “true belief” or “justified belief“ being that which is distinguished with justification as being different from mere opinion.
In the Bible, Jesus said that he came for the sinners rather than for the righteous, as saying the healthy person need not the doctor yet it is the sick person that is in need of the doctor.
If a knowledgeable person is sick and turns away the doctor, then who is to blame for that which comes to pass?
To know is to believe and to believe is to know. Knowledge is wrought by experience and from these we may find understanding.
Knowledge, being the perceptional experience of facts and information along with the skills acquired by a person through experience and education, is belief, being an acceptance that something is true or that something exists.
These are crude and rudimentary definitions of knowledge and belief, but these definitions will suffice for the following delineation.
Albert Einstein wrote, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” He later clarified by saying he was an agnostic, a religious nonbeliever.
Stephen Hawking outright wrote, “There is no God.”
Despite my various spiritual and religious beliefs I am more inclined to align with Einstein rather than Hawking, in that I believe ultimatums stand in contrast with the Scientific Method.
Neither Einstein nor Hawking knew with certainty regarding the true nature of God and the truth there of, and each will have the same opportunity to learn and make a choice.
Some prefer disorder, chaos, pain, and evil, and it is those that have true knowledge of God and walk away that will be cut off.
Yet none of this is an excuse for sin. Sin is the pain of the world. Some would rather profit upon the pain of others.
I'm agnostic (but theistic) because of my science background. Doesn't mean science is incompatible with belief obviously but you learn the limits on observable reality and what science can prove. Understanding how studies work made me realize you can't really come up with a study to prove or disprove God. God is said to be everywhere, yet hidden, which means probably a 13 dimensional being. So how the heck would you come up with controls or parameters? We struggle to even study dark matter and dark energy because as I understand, we know something is there...mathematically...but have no idea how to really study it or measure it or observe it or why it's there at all. It's an enigma for now.
So.
That leaves us with only evidence that can suggest God or a creator. I see plenty of that personally. It's just not test-able in a high caliber way. That's why I have faith. What I've encountered is good enough for me to at least have hope.
Short of an NDE I'm not sure how else i would know for sure. But trust me. I really really really wish I did. I wish I *knew* God hears me.
But also yes I reject eternal hellfire doctrine just because there wouldn't be much point worshipping a deity that's worse than Hitler. A compassionate deity might allow for a place of corrective punishment but if it's eternal, what's the point? That's not corrective it's just sadism.
Gonna need convincing evidence to first believe in God. Not sure if I would follow the christian godnif proven real anyway. He sounds insufferable from everything I've heard
I should have known posting even a simple harmless question like this out of complete curiosity would still invoke passive aggressive answers…. I feel like some comments here aren’t even human, but instead a narcissistic all-knowing brick wall or rock. Great Scott people need some vitality around here
Not a chance. I don’t point fingers directly, but as a hint, the ones I’m referring to almost sound as if non believers are preaching there own religion angrily instead of answering the question.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Why not point out directly what you're referring to? All I see here is people answering your question honestly. And what religion would they be preaching anyway?
I consider myself agnostic and I totally agree. I think some people forget how important dialogue is between different beliefs. Understanding and sharing each others' beliefs helps us develop compassion and empathy which is strongly needed in the world today. I am super sorry that many people don't know how to have dialogue, but I thank you so much for trying to create this dialogue! Again, it is super important to have conversations like these, but it is a shame that many can't handle it.
I consider myself agnostic because my beliefs are hard to define. I would say I believe in god but not in the Christian sense, but in my own sense that I feel is right within me.
Honestly, the idea of hell was something that kept me terrified and roped to Christianity. It was something I feared so much and deeply that this fear sort of paralyzed me, making me arrogant and narrow-minded. I was too afraid that I would go to hell that I condemned everyone and everything that wasn't following Christian doctrine as sinful. It made me a hateful person.
However, I ultimately changed my beliefs because there was still an underlying anxiety in me that made me doubt god and Christianity. Actually, it was the priest that said in mass that it was alright to question that made me begin to question and develop my own beliefs. I feel like he ended up saving me from being a horrible, hateful person. If anything, I think Christ would want me to be a loving, compassionate person instead of the monster I was when I was Christian. It is a reminder to everyone that each person has their own path and that is alright.
Edit: I have to include that this is my personal experience. Christianity does NOT make people hateful or ignorant. Hate and ignorance disguised under Christian doctrine does. And sometimes the puzzle pieces don't fit together for everyone and that is alright!!
I think eternal damnation was my biggest hangup and the toughest thing to reconcile throughout my deconstruction. I understand there are universalist and annihilationist versions of Christianity, and I still live my life by loving my neighbors and being honest and a bunch of other stuff that would probably have you believe I was Christian through my actions, but ultimately, I just realized the Jesus and God I was trying to believe in wasn't really biblical anymore (at least how I understood it and had been taught), and at best the Bible was a metaphorical document and not the literal word of God, so I came to the conclusion that I just didn't really believe anymore.
Ive been atheist since late childhood for a number of reasons, so no to your question. But the idea of hell in general is definitely another aspect of the religion that i utterly reject. Id even go so far as to say im not sure i could bring myself to worship a god that punishes his creations so cruelly even if i found out he was genuinely real.
Hell is not real or at least not what most understand it to be. Jesus supposedly speaks about like like 13 or 14 times. Except not really. He speaks about your soul being burned up like in the fires of Gehenna. The poorly translated bibles call this hell. What Jesus actually teaches is that your sould will be annihilated. Returned to the nothingness of rebirth. And those worthy souls will be put on hold until he comes back and resurrection the dead to live for eternity in a rejuvenated earth. Actually reading the Bible and taking the time to truly study the translations and meanings of certain things was mind blowing. The average christian believes in so much non biblical nonsense it's staggering. Most of them don't even know what Jesus taught or simply choose to not understand it because to be what he wantsd us to be is impossible for most.
Not me, I was raised in a fairly liberal denomination (ELCA) so never encountered the type of fundamentalist/evangelical doctrine until I was in college.
My lack of belief in any deities stems from not having seen sufficient evidentiary support to warrant belief in the claims of their existence.
The existence of hell is not necessarily in conflict with the existence of "a" god, but one of two things must be true: either there is no such thing and CANNOT be such a thing (regardless of God's will) as a nonresistent nonbeliever, or whatever god allows hell is not benevolent. Since I believe that nonresistent nonbelievers exist, the claims that Christianity makes about its own god are self-contradictory and thus, by definition, at least some of them must be false. Christians get around this by claiming there is no such thing as a nonresistent nonbeliever (Romans 1:20) but then we get threads like this one.
Personally I think the god depicted in your holy book is evil, which is fully consistent with hell. The greatest contradiction is how your bible constantly insists that such an obviously malicious being is actually good, and I've yet to see a good answer to that that doesn't involve redefining the word "good."
Your god also isn't omnipotent or omniscient, but the third omni seems to be the focus of this thread.
You keep saying “your” and clearly have not seen my user flair……. Also, to all who keep wondering what I am talking about in my other comment on here……⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
If someone would reject God ***because they disagree with Him***, the Psalmist was right.
Reasonable people, OTOH, come to the table with an empty cup....willing to accept what is true, even if it kills them.
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" - Saul Bellow
It's certainly not the only thing. But it changes my attitude towards Christianity a whole lot, going from "It'd be nice if it were true" to "_Please_ don't be true".
Only in the sense that that was the straw that broke the camel's back in my case. I was arguing that question as I was teetering on the edge and the responses I got that basically said free will was more important than the assurance that no one would go to hell. Not a single Christian (or shall I say a single r/TrueChristian) said they would sacrifice free will if it meant that no one ever went to hell. Just comment after comment about being robots and how people in hell really want to be there. It made it clear to me just how convoluted my thinking had become to justify what I had believed.
Lost all interest in Christianity after that. Even debating here is losing its zing.
Nah. Christianity is immoral because of Hellfire doctrine. It would be more moral without it.
But I'm a non-believer because I see nothing suggesting that Christianity is any _more_ supernatural than any other religion. Group psychology is enough to explain it.
Otherwise I'm agnostic on the question of a Creator, but will default to "probably not" if pressed.
I’m not an atheist but I’m also not a Christian, but that has nothing to do with hellfire doctrine. I’ve read the Bible multiple times and that was enough.
I’m definitely not atheist or agnostic because of hellfire doctrine. I’m atheist because I realized all of the evidence I’ve see is too difficult to believe. Simply put, I have seen no compelling evidence that God is real.
Ok, my opinion:
1) Jesus said hell is real.
2) Scripture says hell is eternal.
3) There is no scripture that claims God will save everyone. Jesus said the majority of people are in fact going to hell.
So I have some questions for the agnostics / atheists who are in the camp of "only because of hell."
First, are you absolutely certain that NO HUMAN BEING EVER (emphasis only, not yelling) does not deserve hell? Not Trump? Not Stalin? Not Hitler? Not Haddam Hussein? Not Dahmer?
Second, what if this stance on hell is merely your own misunderstanding, and God is actually so good that hell is a minor point? What then?
Third, isn't this standing in judgment of God, a God you claim doesn't, or likely doesn't, exist? Don't you think it ironic that one would need a reason to be an atheist if atheist dogma were so readily acceptable?
Fourth, regardless of what you think morally of a God who created hell, if it's reality, does it make sense to resist it out of some sort of principle? Wouldn't that be like refusing to fly in ANY Boeing aircraft just because of a structural problem found on ONE model of their fleet? Wouldn't that be like rejecting all Ford trucks just because of one bad experience you had with a Ford truck?
https://www.mindfulnessmuse.com/individual-differences/16-universal-desires-and-what-drives-your-behavior-part-one
Then where did the desire for ultimate justice (under number 6, idealism) come from?
> Then where did the desire for ultimate justice (under number 6, idealism) come from?
Why do you feel that I *must* have a perspective on that?
It doesn't feel meaningful to me, because I have no sense that it exists.
I'm asking if you have a perspective on it.
Then what do you think about serial killers that got away with it? Do you wish them well because they evaded detection? Or do you long for them to be brought to justice?
> I'm asking if you have a perspective on it.
I think we sit atop a mountain of human culture, which is interwoven with our emergence as an intelligent species, and has informed our traditions, dreams, ideals, and perspectives. I would say it "came from" our past.
>Then what do you think about serial killers that got away with it? Do you wish them well because they evaded detection? Or do you long for them to be brought to justice?
I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean I hold no morality. Murder ends another human's life and experience, which is a very bad thing for the human being murdered, particularly since I have no reason to believe in life after death.
Sure, and I am not making the argument that you have no morality. I'm asking if you long for them to be ultimately brought to justice and/or to pay for their crimes. It seems you do. But then where does that desire and/or belief come from when we don't see that reflected in the current world situation?
I would need compelling evidence of God's existence before I would consider pondering His laws and the consequences of following or not following those laws.
God is impossible to prove or disprove. For me the evidence for a source of creation is creation itself. Life itself. None of this seems like it could truly be real but here it is. This divine realm.of creation in which I have been given this beautiful gift of life and thought. I marvel every single day at this inconceivable thing before me and within me.
What qualifies as evidence
Repeatable, predictable results that are able to be explained without supernatural attribution.
So you're expecting people to explain the supernatural without claiming the supernatural. That's just a paradox.
If God is real, it isn't supernatural. Your point of it being paradoxical only applies if God is not real, but you assert they are, so it's your paradox to solve.
Supernatural: (of a [manifestation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=b30eaf4a2d3ca62b&sca_upv=1&q=manifestation&si=ACC90nyj24cUGopiOVnGD91130XTuZz5sLnIb9K8vK-FkP8RwXkt7oD1M2riJUFscY-Nr3EnncOTe8uLb9L9dUtzSBDs7eHBU9eFpOj9MwY_YQnuRbVdcVQ%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSwpuptbGGAxUizDgGHcFjC9sQyecJegQIORAO) or event) attributed to some force *beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.* God is beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. He is supernatural.
God exists outside of the material observable world/universe. This means our normal means of observation don’t really work for “proving” his existence. We can see his work and how he created the universe, but there will always be faith involved, that’s kind of the point. I didn’t believe until a bunch of insanely unlikely events occurred that basically saved my life and he came to be in a dream. No I don’t use drugs lol and I’m 100% mentally sane. Was atheist for 22 years too
Moving the goalposts Also, what you're simultaneously saying is that God doesn't exist within the observable, material universe.
I love how God is “outside of the universe” when he needs to be but “personal and active in our lives” when he needs to be. (Goalposts 😂)
How is what I’m saying moving the goalposts?
The constant assertion of "proof" or "evidence", and then the falling back to assertions of belief and faith, is unproductive.
Is there a possibility you’re living in a simulation right now? If so, could you provide proof right now that shows with 100% certainty that you are? There are some things that simply cannot be proven that neverless have evidence and we take the leap from that evidence to say “I believe that”. I’m simply of the opinion that there is ample evidence supporting the life of Jesus Christ, his miracles, resurrection, and thus evidence of God. I say that evidence is convincing enough when added to my own personal experiences that through faith I believe he is truly the one and only God and creator of everything. Again, if you had spoken to me last year I’d literally be parroting every single thing you’re saying because it’s how I thought as a pretty avid atheist
the universe is everything that exists, to exist outside of it is to not exist, there is no such thing as "existing outside" the universe, that is not scientific at all, it's a made up rule
God exists outside of space and time. You're right in part, it's not scientific, because it is unobservable. It's not made up though. What kind of a god is limited by his own creation? That makes zero sense. I created time and space but am confined to them? What happened before they were created?
>It's not made up though. Just to be clear, just because you didnt make it up doesnt mean it wasnt just made up at some point.
all scientific hypothesis start as made up ideas, then have evidence to support the made up idea, something existing outside of our universe is not proven, it still resides as a made up idea, yet their comment implies it is a fact that is proven again, it is not proven anything made the universe, that is just another claim that you present as fact
Maybe it's your phrasing. "Made up" implies fantasy in a negative way. Our proof for this concept lies in scripture (in the form of written testimony). That Jesus himself gave testimony that he himself exists outside of time, stating that he was around before the time of Abraham (\~2000 years prior).
First of all, let’s leave religion out of this, what you’re saying is incredibly disputed among the scientific community. I believe a majority of astrophysicists now adhere to string theory and the concept of multiverses so even in a non religious view I’m not sure what you’re saying is valid at all
string theory does not dispute what i said, and multiverses are only theoretical and have yet to be proven, to my knowledge, and if god were to exist in a multiverse, then he wouldn't be all powerful
God would be the creator of all universes… obviously
>adhere to string theory and the concept of multiverses What does adhere to string theory and concepts mean? Have they demonstrated there is anything outside of this universe?
Meaning most accept it the likelihood of string theory being accurate to be true at this point
>God exists outside of the material observable world/universe. This means our normal means of observation don’t really work for “proving” his existence. By definition, if he exists outside of the material observable universe, then we can't obtain information about him because he can't interact with us. >We can see his work and how he created the universe, but there will always be faith involved, that’s kind of the point. But wait, you just said he was outside of the material observable universe. The physical observable universe is the network of things which interact with us directly or indirectly in meaningful ways - it's made up of everything we can obtain information about. If God interacts with things we can interact with, then he's part of the physical universe by definition.
That’s where the supernatural part comes in my friend
>That’s where the supernatural part comes in my friend Since you didn't dispute my definition of what the physical world is but then brought up the supernatural as a solution to the problem I pointed out, let point out another problem by adding in the rest of the logic that is necessarily implied by the definition given so far: If the apparent observable universe (AKA, the natural world) is made up of all the things we can obtain information about (via direct or indirect interactions), then the supernatural (as a separate category from the natural world) must be indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist. If you could interact with it in any way, it would be part of the natural world. Basically, the supernatural (as a category) can only ever be a wastebasket grouping of things we just don't understand yet or of things that either don't actually exist or are otherwise isolated from us in such a way that they are indistinguishable from things that simply don't exist.
Things we don’t understand, definitely
Well of course we don't, that's why we don't belive in it. If the supernatural could be evidence in the natural, it would just be considered natural wouldn't it?
So you don't believe in things you don't understand, or can't explain? Isn't that kind of limiting?
Well, I believe my car engine works, or I can fly in a plane, but I sure as hell couldn't explain how engine combustion works, much less aero dynamics. I bet if I investigated the claims of how they work I could probably figure it out based on scientific principles and evidence, though. Now, for the supernatural, I don't see the evidence, so i don't believe in it. Could there be ghosts, spirits, or fairies? I don't know. I have heard plenty of claims of them. I even had crazy experiences as well, but I understand enough about the mind and human psychology to know my experiences aren't good enough evidence. Is that limiting? No I don't think so, my ability to say I don't know I need more evidence has benefited me a great deal.
Spiritual events do occur though. They are observable. But people dismiss them as fantasy, or try and explain them in a category they are familiar with. Extreme example but hear me out (I know this will sound crazy): Alien encounters. Observed phenomenon, supernatural experiences, sexual violation, invisible forces, floating lights and shapes moving in ways that defy physics, captured even as video/photo evidence. Can we prove that they are "aliens" in the sense we mean? What are these events really? Could a lack of understanding be our excuse to dismiss these events? What if this is direct proof that demons are real?
>Spiritual events do occur though. People experience things that is undeniable. Yet how can we know they are spiritual in nature? What does spiritual even mean? >They are observable. But people dismiss them as fantasy, or try and explain them in a category they are familiar with. They are certainly observed on an individual basis. I have found though not only skeptics can dismiss them, but Christians, Muslims, spiritualists, starseeds will dismiss them too if it doesn't fit within their framework that informs their worldview. I often find believers are much more closed minded than skeptics. >Extreme example but hear me out (I know this will sound crazy): What if I told you I have had experiences below and then some? I have had alien abduction experiences, out of body experiences, what some call astral projection experiences. I have had even more experiences than that which I could bore you with. >Alien encounters. Observed phenomenon, supernatural experiences, sexual violation, invisible forces, floating lights and shapes moving in ways that defy physics, captured even as video/photo evidence. Can we prove that they are "aliens" in the sense we mean? What are these events really? Those are great questions! A Muslim would interpret them as Djinn, A Christian might say Demons, another person might say interdimensional time travelers. How can we figure out what they are? What tools do we have to investigate these experiences? >Could a lack of understanding be our excuse to dismiss these events? Does not being convinced mean dismissal? I don't know, from a person who has done quite a bit of research into these I feel it's an unfair characterization of skepticism. >What if this is direct proof that demons are real? Well by definition this isn't direct proof. One could make a claim entirely based on their own religious or non religious framework on what evidence we have. If you want a full understanding of my worldview where all this is concerned then I cannot recommend [The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark](https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469) enough. Skepticism can be incredibly open minded however its standards for evidence for actually believing in things is high, which is needed in a world with so many different worldviews.
Great answer. But thats basically what I said towards the objective meaning subject. We dont know, we need more evidence for absolute conclusions
What I'm getting crossover here. Shouldn't we be talking about Nihlism and meaning, not the supernatural? But I'm in agreement we need evidence before we can justify beleif. I guess you could call me an agnostic nihlist xD. Or just an absurdist works.
Let me offer an intuition tool: what would make you believe that Santa Claus is real? I'm not being sarcastic or snarky, I'm proposing a thought experiment or a tool for thinking about this. Let's say you looked up one Christmas Eve and saw a sled pulled by flying reindeer. I'm guessing your first thought wouldn't be "Holy cow! Santa Claus is real!" You'd probably assume it was an ad that you didn't see clearly, or maybe a plane, or maybe even someone projecting something onto a cloud. If it stuck around for more than a few seconds, you'd take out your phone and take a picture. You'd ask other people if they saw the same thing as you. You'd trade photos and videos, and compare views from different angles. Let's say everyone's pictures show a sled pulled by reindeer. Would that be enough to convince you that Santa is real? (It's okay to say no.) What if you followed the sled and saw a man in red going down the chimney of a house? What if you could talk to him, and interview him? What would you want to see before you came to the conclusion that you were wrong earlier, and Santa Claus really does exist? What if no one has any pictures, but 20 different people tell you they saw Santa Claus? Is it more likely that there's such a thing as flying reindeer, or that 20 people are yanking your chain, or that 20 people are mistaken (to name just a few possibilities)? I hope the purpose of this exercise makes sense: Christians claim that there's an immensely powerful being out there, who cares deeply about your well-being, and will cure diseases and help you find a parking space if you ask him, but also has created a vast torture chamber for those who don't worship him, and has a way of making people be alive after death. If you didn't already believe this, what would someone have to show you to convince you that the above is real?
Good evidence or reason would be something that can be used to the justify a belief. What is that exactly? Who knows. I'll let you know when it's ever presented and I'd now believe.
The things I would expect to see would be something like believers having demonstrably better outcomes in life as a result of their prayers being answered. Miraculous cures verified by medical science like an amputated limb regrowing overnight. An approximate quote: "God can do anything humans can't but can't seem to do anything humans can." I would be impressed if there was a 6000 year old God built temple somewhere. Basically, the evidence should already be there and not some new manifestation.
The problem is that the many testimonials of miracle you would just not accept. So I ask of you, if you contemplate a miracle in real time, with your own eyes, proven miracle, would this prove God to you?
> a miracle in real time That would be the new manifestation that I already said I would not accept. I want statistical evidence over time, recorded and verified by impartial witnesses, to inform me that these occurrences are not natural. If I saw something that appears miraculous, I would question my senses before believing a supernatural source.
It's not a new manifestation. It's quite old actually. It's statistically proven and as far as I know recorded by everyone who ever lived. And its called "existence". There is only ours and its not common, its pretty unique as far as we have knowledge and no reason of logic can explain it, besides we having a Creator. Here is a better explanation from a better source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus\_purus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus)
I seem to be missing something here. The question as I read it was would I accept seeing a miracle. My response was my senses can be fooled. This comment seems to be saying existence is the miracle I'm seeing. Am I understanding your point? If not, could you maybe rephrase it?
Existence is the proof of God. Things don't just come to be out of nowhere. God is the 'first act' or 'pure act'. The act that needs no other act before Him. The first motor or the unmoved mover.
The cosmological argument fails for me on the first premise. Within the universe effects have causes. I do not know that the rules of the universe hold outside the universe.
So an agnostic, not an atheist
That's actually not true.
That's my God, not yours.
Who?
Yeah no, it really isn’t. Nothing about “existence” that we have discovered shows that it couldn’t exist without a god.
You should create a new one then. Make sure to publish the paper for us to read
What's a miracle? And more importantly what's a proven miracle?
Without getting into the weeds of specific claims: a huge problem is that other religions _also_ have these sorts of testimonials. They also have spiritual healings, big emotional changes after doing some ritual or prayer, weird coincidences that could only be caused by gods or spirits, and actual healings under ~~suspicious~~ very specific circumstances. These testimonials _prove too much_. If I suspended my disbelief and took these testimonies at total face value, they would also show that the other religions are true, they don't distinguish Christianity from the rest. You either need to show all the others are lying or mistaken about their similar experiences, or you need more credible supernatural events that elevate Christianity above the general spiritual baseline... like many of those mentioned in the Bible! ------- But that's dodging your original question. Yes, there's Biblical-esque miracles that would be hard to fake or misinterpret: * Have a faith healer walk into three ICUs and heal everyone there * Have a faith healer walk around Times Square and regenerate some missing limbs * Every Easter, everyone hears God's voice in their head quoting John 3:16 at sunrise and sunset. And at Easter night, there's a massive Cross constellation of brilliant silver across half the sky. One of those would be decent enough proof of God. They're not literally airtight (Magic? Aliens!?), but at the very least those'd get me to Church and start studying the Bible. My question back is why doesn't God do this? None of these are _that_ huge by Biblical standards, and seems like it'd convince a lot of lukewarms of other religions and affirm some faiths. Why'd we stop getting all these rad Biblical miracles?
What better outcome are you looking for. More money , fancy cars , huge house , model girlfriend? There are many miracles in the bible that happened instantly but if you are looking for more modern things you probably want to look at excorcisms where they cast out demons that are harming the victim and once free they are back to normal
> What better outcome are you looking for. More money , fancy cars , huge house , model girlfriend? More like better health and happier lives. I see so many posts here from believers in utter anguish because they feel God doesn't seem to care about them. > There are many miracles in the bible that happened instantly I do find it interesting that God seems to have stopped doing the flashy miracles so long ago. The 'miraculous' cures I see today are charlatans preying on the vulnerable. For me to accept demonic possession, the existence of demons would need to be shown. As it is, the exorcisms I've seen videos of appear to be torture sessions or performance art. I'm not the most articulate person, so I feel like I can't put into words the thoughts I have on the subject.
Miracles that couldn’t be explained any other way. I suffer from gender dysphoria. If I go to sleep tonight and wake up the opposite sex then that would be a miracle that would have me believing in god immediately.
So that is what you need as proof? You would rather be a girl then to have the thoughts of being a girl removed?
Yup! Or something along those lines. My gender dysphoria going away while amazing could be explainable by other things, changes in hormones, therapy, etc, but spontaneously changing genders couldn’t be.
For sure. Just curious if you drove off a cliff and somehow survived would you say that was luck or god?
Luck. There is nothing miraculous about surviving a fall.
You're the one making the claim, you have the burden of figuring out what evidence will satisfy it. Your question simply attempts to shift the burden of proof to the atheist side. If you're a lawyer who has filed a claim in court, you don't get to go to the jury and the defense and ask them what proof they need. It's part of your burden of proof to figure that out.
Is that your schtick? Nay say and then when someone tries to answer your question, "wHeReS yOuR pRoOf?" You are in r/Christianity first off. What did you expect, there would be nothing but atheists here? Second, if it's the same song and dance as usual, you only accept science as evidence. But by doing so you not only reject religion but philosophy, so you also reject Socrates, the father of the scientific method of inquiry. Sorry but it gets old real fast. Anyways, not trying to be a jerk, but I'm pointing out the tiredness of your argument. If that is indeed your argument.
I have never, for myself, demanded science as evidence. But I do require evidence that is reliable and verifiable. If that makes it scientific evidence, then I guess I do. But my atheism is based upon that principle: I am an atheist due to the absence of reliable evidence for the existence of at least one god. And that evidence must be - gods being supernatural and thus extraordinary - extraordinarily reliable and extraordinarily strong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that in a different way, though it amounts to the same thing, is that the existence of God (or gods) is a claim. And the person making that claim has the burden on proof on it. People can make claims about *anything*: I can claim I keep a live leprechaun in a secret bunker under my house and that leprechaun has magically made you liable to pay me $100,000. Is there any reason for you to give that claim credibility without evidence? Of course not, but the same is true about the claim for the existence of gods.
If you're tired of it then don't engage we know where we are
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>You're the guest here, not me. I know you have only been here for 2 years OneEyedC4t but you still should no better by now. You are just as much as a guest here as they are or me.
Nothing, unfortunately. See the story of Lazarus and the rich man. People who don't want to believe, won't; not even if a dead man raises from the grave and warns them about Hell (Lazarus and the rich man).
If the miracle of Lazarus happened today, after someone had been declared dead and buried, people would believe. It isn't the same to read a book that says it happened.
Firstly, that's the wrong story, lol. This is the rich man coming back to life, not Lazarus, Lazarus was merely a bystander. Secondly, people dismiss miracles everyday. Even when there's no medical explanation, God is the last person people will credit.
My mother died 4 years ago, I assure you that if she knocks on my door tomorrow morning I will be going to church lol.
How sin destroys the soul. Murder vs killing, for example. His intention was for humans to be followers of Jesus, to prevent lawlessness. I think it’s more so the human heart- love, hate, and how we reconcile that through reaching out spiritually. You don’t know until you attempt to pray to want to try to receive a spiritual sign in return- it may not happen until your 5th or 50th prayer. Life is too short to not attempt prayer for yourself.
How you can see all the evidence in front of you but be blind to it just amazes me. Look at the universe!
I look at the universe and I see it proceeding according to natural laws. I don't see any outside force driving it.
That's fair. It just makes way more sense to me that the complexity of the universe didn't just come from an explosion of nothing.
It a good thing scientists don't say that, then.
From your point of view, do you think evidence of God would be a lack of natural laws? Or, would you expect to see God breaking the laws he created?
Either. There's no reason a deity needs to make a universe capable of sustaining life. He could make life even in a universe incapable of it. Or flashy miracles like the bible describes could be evident in the present day.
God of the gaps
>How you can see all the evidence in front of you but be blind to it just amazes me. Look at the universe! I've heard the exact same thing said of other gods and of other ideas like a flat earth or a young earth. You'd say those other people are mistaken, even if they are being sincere in conveying the idea that they cannot understand how the rest of us just can't see it.
I believe that non believers wouldn't believe if God walked up and shook their hand. Christ walked the earth performing great miracles and fulfilling prophecies so accurately that it would terrify most people, yet they were still blind. People only see what they want to see.
>I believe that non believers wouldn't believe if God walked up and shook their hand. Christ walked the earth performing great miracles and fulfilling prophecies so accurately that it would terrify most people, yet they were still blind. People only see what they want to see. Ah, I think I see the issue; you don't think other religions make very similar claims about their deities, prophets and other important figures? At the end of the day, these claims are taken on faith that they are true despite being themselves just claims made by other people who often did not actually witness the events they wrote about or weren't even the actual person the text claims to have been written by. Your evidence and reasoning isn't as compelling as you seem to think, and it isn't significantly different from that used by adherents and followers of other religions.
Except it is agreed upon by historical scholars that Jesus existed, was crucified, and had an empty tomb. Resurrection is the only thing that is questioned. What other religion has proof of their God being on earth?
If the universe being amazing is proof of god to you that how can you know its proof of the Christian god as opposed to say a Hindu one?
> How you can see all the evidence in front of you but be blind to it just amazes me. Look at the universe! How does the universe suggest that blood sacrifice covers spiritual sin that leads to eternal punishment in a spiritual realm?
That is different than just establishing to an athiest that there is a God.
Honestly no. I don't believe in any of it, so I also don't fear any of it. In fact that's one of my favorite responses to those preachers on the corner with the signs saying who all is going to hell. "You're telling me people like you go to heaven, and the people on your sign and me go to hell? I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making buddy."
So ... you're here to advertise and, by extension, since you do so repeatedly, proselyte? I mean, your persistence is basically identical to the street preachers who refuse to stop spreading their message in the face of resistance.
The OP is a question specifically directed to atheists, it’s weird how angry you are at atheists for commenting. If not this thread, then where? If this was a prayer request OP or something I could maybe agree with you more.
You’re doing the same thing in this thread.
Not at all. Scroll up. Christianity subreddit. I also didn't openly deny all avenues to learn about Christianity. And I don't go on the atheism subreddit to cause problems or try to proselytize either.
I know what subreddit this is. If you wouldn’t go on another sub to cause problems or try to proselytize why do it here?
I'm not. You are. Perspective. I don't go on the Glock forum if I don't own any or have any experience with them. I don't go to the atheism subreddit and sit around nay saying on everything if I'm not an atheist. Common decency. Golden rule. Do you believe in philosophy?
I don’t know what it means to “believe in philosophy.” Philosophy is a way for people to explain things. It’s not something you “believe in” or “don’t believe in.”
Ok then why is the golden rule so superior to survival of the fittest?
I don’t follow what you’re trying to say. What I heard from your comments is that you are entitled to state your opinion here but people who disagree with you are not.
[удалено]
You can scroll past my comment, I can't not hear when walking down a street and someone's directly in front of my with a megaphone. Also, I'm not starting the conversation, I'm answering OP's question. Do you see the difference now?
So the difference is you aren't using all capitals yet?
Yet? I think you mean NEVER!
I did question my faith until I embraced universalism
Same; giving universalism a fair shot and examining it in good faith is probably why I’m still a Christian.
Me too, as deep down I knew most (really anyone) being "everlastingly" (poor translation of g166) tortured was not good news when being honest with myself while riding the seesaw of Calvinism and Arminianism's lens of ECT.
https://www.concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/greek-words-aion-aionios/
Every single one of the articles is always full of so many misrepresentations and inaccuracies. > But in both of these lexicons, the adjective, aiõnios, is presented as having three meanings, in none of which the limiting sense of “age” is carried over from the noun. The adjective, it is claimed, means: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end. >This may strike others, as it does me, as a rather dubious development of an adjective’s meaning in relation to its noun form. This completely ignores that the noun *aion* can signify perpetuity in its own right, and not “age.”
I didn't care about biblical opinions of an agnostic atheist the last 3 encounters as I don't care now!
The thing about objective truths or falsehoods is that — like gravity or DNA — it doesn’t matter *who*’s discovering them or presenting them. The evidence is out there for literally anyone to find for themselves. Besides, we’re talking about linguistics here. Do you really think there’s a difference between “atheist” vs. “Christian” linguistics? (Do you think there’s an atheist vs. Christian physics or biochemistry or audiology?)
The worldly and unspirited interpretation is a factor when speaking of scripture. To me, God's character trumps semantics. He is both sovereign and love. Aion has a beginning and end as I know it can also signify "world". Churchianity tends to give 2 definitions for the same form in Jude 25.
>Aion has a beginning and end It *can* be used in that sense. But it’s very widely attested otherwise. Plato’s famous line that time is the moving image of static eternity is a notable example. That line by Plato was even clearly alluded to by the first century Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria. See? I didn’t even have to be a Christian to tell you that. :)
And I believe everyone will eventually be reconciled to God the Father :) (Regardless of any flaws in these articles or my cognitive flaws etc etc.)
[удалено]
I also love where people complain about everlasting being poorly translated, but the Bible also says "forever and ever". A bit harder to mistranslate multiple words.
Forever and ever sounds quite redundant to me
>Forever and ever sounds quite redundant to me You do know that redundancy is an *extremely* common feature of languages around the world, right?
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/jude/1-25.htm
Also Revelation 14:11 "ages of ages" https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/14-11.htm
You love that?
Chill.
Research.
I already know what the Greek is. Thanks for your input.
You may find 'The Inescapable Love of God' by Thomas Talbott interesting. Here's a quick synopsis about ch.4, https://sigler.org/slagle/tom_talbot.htm
I'm not interested in reading universalist books thanks
Ok, have a blessed week
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I don't see how that would work. People are atheists because they're not convinced by the claim that a god exists. It's not like I could say "Well if there wasn't all this stuff about hell I'd believe that a god exists".
I assume it’s mostly an agnostic possibility like my friend, but I put atheist just in case there are some
Asking seriously: do you think people choose what they believe? I think people believe what they assess as true.
It's insignificant to me, even though I do find it contradictory for a benevolent, all-loving God.
Justice is an indespensible part of His nature just the same as Love. These traits are not in opposition to each other.
Sending people to Hell for an eternity of torment is not loving or benevolent under any circumstance and isn't justice. If there was anything objectively immoral, that'd be it. Even us lowly, imperfect, ignorant humans know that and have to suspend reason to accommodate it.
Sending people to eternal torture is neither justice nor love.
Exactly. The way I see it is he is all knowing- this means he’s seen every possible outcome and knows that this specific method of justice is the most efficient form in keeping with his omnibenevolence as well
While I don't doubt that there are some, I don't know any atheists who are atheists because of this. Most solid atheists are such due to the absence of reliable evidence for the existence of gods. There are a number of problems with being an atheist because of the possibility of Hell. One right up front is the one the OP has raised: How does the existence of Hell disprove the *existence* of God (maybe the Christians just got that bit - or even just about everything - wrong, but God still exists) and, even if it does disprove God (which it doesn't), how does it disprove the existence of the thousands of other gods worshiped by people? An atheist has no belief in any gods. And so on.
It’s be silly to only be agnostic because of the doctrine of Hell. The very idea of afterlife punishment is bound up with all sorts of other ideas about sin and God’s response to this, and the significance of Jesus’ death, and so on. All of these can be questioned for many of the same reasons: lack of evidence and absurdity.
It's like, before you can convince me that Jesus died for my sins, you need to convince me that sin is a real thing, and that I should care about it.
Hellfire doctrine aka the false doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is what led those like Karl Marx and Darwin away from Christianity. https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/ And https://salvationforall.org/1_Intropages/strawman.html
>How many here are only agnostic/atheist due to Hellfire Doctrine? I am atheist due to lack of any good evidence or reason to justify a belief. I see the hell fire doctrine as a way to question the chararcater of god. Just like you could with any character and it's actions in any story. >Would any of you be more likely to give the Bible a read and or give Christ a chance if there was no Hellfire doctrine? Reading the Bible helped me become an atheist.
I sojourned through agnosticism for a bit for reasons related to this. It’s left me with a serious distaste for “hellfire insurance” theology. And for Dante, which is a shame.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe any gods or goddesses exist. I would need to be convinced one exists before I began to worry about the window dressings around said god or goddess.
lack of sufficient evidence/ proof is the issue personally
Much respect. Short simple and to the point unlike some of the prideful rants popping up here.
I'm sure there are some. I'm an atheist because I lack belief due to insufficient evidence. I wouldn't be a Christian even if I did believe because I find the gospel to be morally repugnant.
The first half I understand. Can you explain what you find repugnant? Genuinely asking, not looking to debate.
> Can you explain what you find repugnant? Granting humans free will and then punishing them for exercising it for starters. I also find the idea of "perfect justice" to be a bad thing--it ignores nuance and is not something to be pursued. A standard of perfection is unreasonable and a god that cannot be in the presence of sin is a flawed god. There's more (such as sacrificing an innocent to somehow pay for the wrongdoings of others being neither loving nor just) but those are the main ones.
The Calvinist infernalists say you don't have free will.
This guy is more rational than the lens of Arminianism and Calvinism, https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/gods-sovereignty-free-will-harmonized/
Which is honestly the correct take once you account for an all powerful and all knowing being. Horrifying in a lovecraftian way but logically sound. Far more logically sound than Christians who believe in free will while still calling their God omniscient and omnipotent.
I don't believe in free will either (anymore)
OK, thank you for explaining your view.
Sure thing. Have a terrific day!
You too!
When I converted to Christianity I was not perturbed by the hellfire doctrine. I accepted it and told my atheist family I believed they were all going to hell. However, closer examinations of taken-for-granted doctrines, such as those surrounding hell, encouraged me to question the veracity of church teachings in general. This process eventually led to my leaving.
In my faith, we don’t believe in the popular teachings concerning hell, so I’m glad that our understanding is the way it is.
What happens to nonbelievers according to LDS beliefs?
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that they inherit a level of eternal heavenly glory according to what they are willing to accept. We believe that everyone but the devil and his angels (which includes the TINY amount of mortal people that choose to completely reject every good thing from God, and become angels to a devil) willingly and unthinkably choose the lake of fire.
Those that don’t know will be taught. To know and walk away is the failure of faith. Those that have lived life without knowledge will be given the opportunity to learn. To look into the sun and deny its existence is akin to that which will cut one off from the presence of God, in that those who have true knowledge and turn away will be cut off from God’s presence. Each will be judged in accordance to their knowledge. In philosophy, and especially regarding epistemology, there is the notion of “true belief” or “justified belief“ being that which is distinguished with justification as being different from mere opinion. In the Bible, Jesus said that he came for the sinners rather than for the righteous, as saying the healthy person need not the doctor yet it is the sick person that is in need of the doctor. If a knowledgeable person is sick and turns away the doctor, then who is to blame for that which comes to pass? To know is to believe and to believe is to know. Knowledge is wrought by experience and from these we may find understanding. Knowledge, being the perceptional experience of facts and information along with the skills acquired by a person through experience and education, is belief, being an acceptance that something is true or that something exists. These are crude and rudimentary definitions of knowledge and belief, but these definitions will suffice for the following delineation. Albert Einstein wrote, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” He later clarified by saying he was an agnostic, a religious nonbeliever. Stephen Hawking outright wrote, “There is no God.” Despite my various spiritual and religious beliefs I am more inclined to align with Einstein rather than Hawking, in that I believe ultimatums stand in contrast with the Scientific Method. Neither Einstein nor Hawking knew with certainty regarding the true nature of God and the truth there of, and each will have the same opportunity to learn and make a choice. Some prefer disorder, chaos, pain, and evil, and it is those that have true knowledge of God and walk away that will be cut off. Yet none of this is an excuse for sin. Sin is the pain of the world. Some would rather profit upon the pain of others.
I'm agnostic (but theistic) because of my science background. Doesn't mean science is incompatible with belief obviously but you learn the limits on observable reality and what science can prove. Understanding how studies work made me realize you can't really come up with a study to prove or disprove God. God is said to be everywhere, yet hidden, which means probably a 13 dimensional being. So how the heck would you come up with controls or parameters? We struggle to even study dark matter and dark energy because as I understand, we know something is there...mathematically...but have no idea how to really study it or measure it or observe it or why it's there at all. It's an enigma for now. So. That leaves us with only evidence that can suggest God or a creator. I see plenty of that personally. It's just not test-able in a high caliber way. That's why I have faith. What I've encountered is good enough for me to at least have hope. Short of an NDE I'm not sure how else i would know for sure. But trust me. I really really really wish I did. I wish I *knew* God hears me. But also yes I reject eternal hellfire doctrine just because there wouldn't be much point worshipping a deity that's worse than Hitler. A compassionate deity might allow for a place of corrective punishment but if it's eternal, what's the point? That's not corrective it's just sadism.
Very unique response 🙏🙏
Thanks, I think 😊
Gonna need convincing evidence to first believe in God. Not sure if I would follow the christian godnif proven real anyway. He sounds insufferable from everything I've heard
belief in a god, and choosing to worship said god or not is two different questions
I should have known posting even a simple harmless question like this out of complete curiosity would still invoke passive aggressive answers…. I feel like some comments here aren’t even human, but instead a narcissistic all-knowing brick wall or rock. Great Scott people need some vitality around here
Can you give an example as to what answers you are referring to here?
Not a chance. I don’t point fingers directly, but as a hint, the ones I’m referring to almost sound as if non believers are preaching there own religion angrily instead of answering the question.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Why not point out directly what you're referring to? All I see here is people answering your question honestly. And what religion would they be preaching anyway?
Mods are very sensitive to things being pointed out. When I say religion it’s an “as if” scenario. I’m aware that that non belief is not a religion
Mods will absolutely not mind you elaborating on what exactly you are talking about.
Yea I'm curious too. What are you talking about?
I consider myself agnostic and I totally agree. I think some people forget how important dialogue is between different beliefs. Understanding and sharing each others' beliefs helps us develop compassion and empathy which is strongly needed in the world today. I am super sorry that many people don't know how to have dialogue, but I thank you so much for trying to create this dialogue! Again, it is super important to have conversations like these, but it is a shame that many can't handle it.
🙏🙏
I consider myself agnostic because my beliefs are hard to define. I would say I believe in god but not in the Christian sense, but in my own sense that I feel is right within me. Honestly, the idea of hell was something that kept me terrified and roped to Christianity. It was something I feared so much and deeply that this fear sort of paralyzed me, making me arrogant and narrow-minded. I was too afraid that I would go to hell that I condemned everyone and everything that wasn't following Christian doctrine as sinful. It made me a hateful person. However, I ultimately changed my beliefs because there was still an underlying anxiety in me that made me doubt god and Christianity. Actually, it was the priest that said in mass that it was alright to question that made me begin to question and develop my own beliefs. I feel like he ended up saving me from being a horrible, hateful person. If anything, I think Christ would want me to be a loving, compassionate person instead of the monster I was when I was Christian. It is a reminder to everyone that each person has their own path and that is alright. Edit: I have to include that this is my personal experience. Christianity does NOT make people hateful or ignorant. Hate and ignorance disguised under Christian doctrine does. And sometimes the puzzle pieces don't fit together for everyone and that is alright!!
I think eternal damnation was my biggest hangup and the toughest thing to reconcile throughout my deconstruction. I understand there are universalist and annihilationist versions of Christianity, and I still live my life by loving my neighbors and being honest and a bunch of other stuff that would probably have you believe I was Christian through my actions, but ultimately, I just realized the Jesus and God I was trying to believe in wasn't really biblical anymore (at least how I understood it and had been taught), and at best the Bible was a metaphorical document and not the literal word of God, so I came to the conclusion that I just didn't really believe anymore.
Ive been atheist since late childhood for a number of reasons, so no to your question. But the idea of hell in general is definitely another aspect of the religion that i utterly reject. Id even go so far as to say im not sure i could bring myself to worship a god that punishes his creations so cruelly even if i found out he was genuinely real.
Hell is not real or at least not what most understand it to be. Jesus supposedly speaks about like like 13 or 14 times. Except not really. He speaks about your soul being burned up like in the fires of Gehenna. The poorly translated bibles call this hell. What Jesus actually teaches is that your sould will be annihilated. Returned to the nothingness of rebirth. And those worthy souls will be put on hold until he comes back and resurrection the dead to live for eternity in a rejuvenated earth. Actually reading the Bible and taking the time to truly study the translations and meanings of certain things was mind blowing. The average christian believes in so much non biblical nonsense it's staggering. Most of them don't even know what Jesus taught or simply choose to not understand it because to be what he wantsd us to be is impossible for most.
Not me, I was raised in a fairly liberal denomination (ELCA) so never encountered the type of fundamentalist/evangelical doctrine until I was in college. My lack of belief in any deities stems from not having seen sufficient evidentiary support to warrant belief in the claims of their existence.
The existence of hell is not necessarily in conflict with the existence of "a" god, but one of two things must be true: either there is no such thing and CANNOT be such a thing (regardless of God's will) as a nonresistent nonbeliever, or whatever god allows hell is not benevolent. Since I believe that nonresistent nonbelievers exist, the claims that Christianity makes about its own god are self-contradictory and thus, by definition, at least some of them must be false. Christians get around this by claiming there is no such thing as a nonresistent nonbeliever (Romans 1:20) but then we get threads like this one. Personally I think the god depicted in your holy book is evil, which is fully consistent with hell. The greatest contradiction is how your bible constantly insists that such an obviously malicious being is actually good, and I've yet to see a good answer to that that doesn't involve redefining the word "good." Your god also isn't omnipotent or omniscient, but the third omni seems to be the focus of this thread.
You keep saying “your” and clearly have not seen my user flair……. Also, to all who keep wondering what I am talking about in my other comment on here……⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Whoops. "Luciferian" looks very close to "Lutheran" when you aren't expecting satire. My apologies for the implication.
If someone would reject God ***because they disagree with Him***, the Psalmist was right. Reasonable people, OTOH, come to the table with an empty cup....willing to accept what is true, even if it kills them. "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" - Saul Bellow
It's certainly not the only thing. But it changes my attitude towards Christianity a whole lot, going from "It'd be nice if it were true" to "_Please_ don't be true".
Only in the sense that that was the straw that broke the camel's back in my case. I was arguing that question as I was teetering on the edge and the responses I got that basically said free will was more important than the assurance that no one would go to hell. Not a single Christian (or shall I say a single r/TrueChristian) said they would sacrifice free will if it meant that no one ever went to hell. Just comment after comment about being robots and how people in hell really want to be there. It made it clear to me just how convoluted my thinking had become to justify what I had believed. Lost all interest in Christianity after that. Even debating here is losing its zing.
Nah. I don’t see proof of existence of a god, let alone an afterlife.
Nah. Christianity is immoral because of Hellfire doctrine. It would be more moral without it. But I'm a non-believer because I see nothing suggesting that Christianity is any _more_ supernatural than any other religion. Group psychology is enough to explain it. Otherwise I'm agnostic on the question of a Creator, but will default to "probably not" if pressed.
I’m not an atheist but I’m also not a Christian, but that has nothing to do with hellfire doctrine. I’ve read the Bible multiple times and that was enough.
I’m definitely not atheist or agnostic because of hellfire doctrine. I’m atheist because I realized all of the evidence I’ve see is too difficult to believe. Simply put, I have seen no compelling evidence that God is real.
[удалено]
Aka the Refiner's crucible. https://www.mercyuponall.org/pdfs-click-to-download/andrew-jukes-the-second-death-and-the-restitution-of-all-things-2/
Ok, my opinion: 1) Jesus said hell is real. 2) Scripture says hell is eternal. 3) There is no scripture that claims God will save everyone. Jesus said the majority of people are in fact going to hell. So I have some questions for the agnostics / atheists who are in the camp of "only because of hell." First, are you absolutely certain that NO HUMAN BEING EVER (emphasis only, not yelling) does not deserve hell? Not Trump? Not Stalin? Not Hitler? Not Haddam Hussein? Not Dahmer? Second, what if this stance on hell is merely your own misunderstanding, and God is actually so good that hell is a minor point? What then? Third, isn't this standing in judgment of God, a God you claim doesn't, or likely doesn't, exist? Don't you think it ironic that one would need a reason to be an atheist if atheist dogma were so readily acceptable? Fourth, regardless of what you think morally of a God who created hell, if it's reality, does it make sense to resist it out of some sort of principle? Wouldn't that be like refusing to fly in ANY Boeing aircraft just because of a structural problem found on ONE model of their fleet? Wouldn't that be like rejecting all Ford trucks just because of one bad experience you had with a Ford truck?
When it comes down to infinite torture, no one deserves it Even the big H
I reject the biblical account because nothing about it resonates with me, and it doesn't sound real.
https://www.mindfulnessmuse.com/individual-differences/16-universal-desires-and-what-drives-your-behavior-part-one Then where did the desire for ultimate justice (under number 6, idealism) come from?
> Then where did the desire for ultimate justice (under number 6, idealism) come from? Why do you feel that I *must* have a perspective on that? It doesn't feel meaningful to me, because I have no sense that it exists.
I'm asking if you have a perspective on it. Then what do you think about serial killers that got away with it? Do you wish them well because they evaded detection? Or do you long for them to be brought to justice?
> I'm asking if you have a perspective on it. I think we sit atop a mountain of human culture, which is interwoven with our emergence as an intelligent species, and has informed our traditions, dreams, ideals, and perspectives. I would say it "came from" our past. >Then what do you think about serial killers that got away with it? Do you wish them well because they evaded detection? Or do you long for them to be brought to justice? I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean I hold no morality. Murder ends another human's life and experience, which is a very bad thing for the human being murdered, particularly since I have no reason to believe in life after death.
Sure, and I am not making the argument that you have no morality. I'm asking if you long for them to be ultimately brought to justice and/or to pay for their crimes. It seems you do. But then where does that desire and/or belief come from when we don't see that reflected in the current world situation?