Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Godular]

Why would an atheist care about something which does not exist in their eyes? I am Jewish but I understand why atheists believe what they do, I do hate it when Atheists try to tell me what I can and can't believe in though.

To be fair, that isn't an atheist-exclusive trait.

[Socialist Tera]

Why would an atheist care about something which does not exist in their eyes? I am Jewish but I understand why atheists believe what they do, I do hate it when Atheists try to tell me what I can and can't believe in though.

To be fair, that isn't an atheist-exclusive trait.

That, is true. That is why, I dislike it when any religious group tells me what I should and should not believe in.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

If I were any kind of deity, I'd find modern human atheists to be incredibly obnoxious spoiled children who complain that I can't possibly be a good entity unless I give them everything they want all the time with no strings attached.

The only thing I've personally asked of God is that it stop subjecting the innocent to pestilance and disease for whatever twisted reason.

It can keep the Ferraris and mansions.

Humans have no right to make any demands of deities - any more than ants have a right to make demands of humans.

This statement makes me shudder because it is one of the core beliefs of the infants-burn-in-hell Christianity that one has previously claimed is not representative of the whole. After all, if an innocent infant which never had the opportunity to hear or comprehend the Gospel is just a pathetic lowly bug, well, it's easy to toss into hell with the rest of a garbage.

So to God I'm just an insect? I suppose this makes sense, given what its willing to do to the young innocent. Like a demented child with a magnifying glass. Also, if God views me as nothing more than a pest insect, then why bother with the whole gospel and salvation thing? But if, rather, God really does think of us as more than pest insects, then I again assert that it has a very strange way of showing it...

[Gim]

If I were any kind of deity, I'd find modern human atheists to be incredibly obnoxious spoiled children who complain that I can't possibly be a good entity unless I give them everything they want all the time with no strings attached.

The only thing I've personally asked of God is that he stop subjecting the innocent to pestilance and disease for whatever twisted reason.

It can keep the Ferraris and mansions.

Humans have no right to make any demands of deities - any more than ants have a right to make demands of humans.

So to God I'm just an insect? I suppose this makes sense, given what its willing to do to the young innocent. Like a demented child with a magnifying glass. Also, if God views me as nothing more than a pest insect, then why bother with the whole gospel and salvation thing? But if, rather, God really does think of us as more than pest insects, then I again assert that it has a very strange way of showing it...

That's what the deity-human relationship is about. The world in which we live isn't ours.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

The world in which we live isn't ours.

Then the obligation placed on God to fix what it has done is even stronger, right? Cause its God's world, right?

And yet...

[Gim]

The world in which we live isn't ours.

Then the obligation placed on God to fix what it has done is even stronger, right? Cause its God's world, right?

And yet...

We shouldn't be so abhorrent about Him. He still gave us lives to live.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

We shouldn't be so abhorrent about Him. He still gave us lives to live.

What does this even mean? The abuse of a child (by intentionally placing her in a position to suffer pestilence or disease) is justified because otherwise the child would not have existed? Again, if I have a child of my own, do I get a free hand to beat or otherwise abuse her because she should be damn well grateful to me that she exists at all? Is God actually that psychotic?

Probably, since we're just bugs by comparison apparently.

[Gim]

We shouldn't be so abhorrent about Him. He still gave us lives to live.

What does this even mean? The abuse of a child (by intentionally placing her in a position to suffer pestilence or disease) is justified because otherwise the child would not have existed? Again, if I have a child of my own, do I get a free hand to beat or otherwise abuse her because she should be damn well grateful to me that she exists at all? Is God actually that psychotic?

Probably, since we're just bugs by comparison apparently.

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself. However, in the Bible, he states numerous times that is for the greater good of us.

[The Alma Mater]

What does this even mean? The abuse of a child (by intentionally placing her in a position to suffer pestilence or disease) is justified because otherwise the child would not have existed? Again, if I have a child of my own, do I get a free hand to beat or otherwise abuse her because she should be damn well grateful to me that she exists at all? Is God actually that psychotic?

Probably, since we're just bugs by comparison apparently.

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself. However, in the Bible, he states numerous times that is for the greater good of us.

Exactly what I tell my Sims when I remove the pools ladder.

[Gim]

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself. However, in the Bible, he states numerous times that is for the greater good of us.

Exactly what I tell my Sims when I remove the pools ladder.

I just let my Sims people urinate in their pants.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension.

This statement must be bullshit, given the tenacity of religious believers in trying to get me to accept God's plan (for salvation, or anything else). If that plan is beyond comprehension, there is no way that believers could actually understand it to the extent necessary to explain it to anyone else in a convincing way. Ergo, believers do not know (and thus cannot believe) anything more than any other non-believer. We're all atheists after all.

If, however, believers do know (and thus can believe in any sensible way) God's plan, said plan must be comprehensible to ordinary humans. Thus, it can be analyzed by ordinary humans. Thus, it can be critiqued by ordinary humans. If God has a meaningful plan, one must be allowed to analyze and question it. Even a pathetic bug like me.

Telling me that God has a plan that you know is good, even though you cannot actually comprehend it as good, since only God could possibly know whether it is good, is self-contradictory nonsense. More of that "magical mystery" cop-out nonsense. A magical mystery God is, at best, a cheap stage conjuror.

[Gim]

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension.

This statement must be bullshit, given the tenacity of religious believers in trying to get me to accept God's plan (for salvation, or anything else). If that plan is beyond comprehension, there is no way that believers could actually understand it to the extent necessary to explain it to anyone else in a convincing way. Ergo, believers do not know (and thus cannot believe) anything more than any other non-believer.

If, however, believers do know and can believe in God's plan, said plan must be comprehensible to ordinary humans. Thus, it can be analyzed by ordinary humans. Thus, it can be critiqued by ordinary humans.

Telling me that God has a plan that you know it is good, even though you cannot actually comprehend it as such, is self-contradictory nonsense. More of that "magical mystery" cop-out nonsense. A magical mystery God is, at best, a cheap stage conjurer.

I'm only stating the interpretations of God's words, which are stated in the Bible. We do not know his plans beyond that. Some dare interpret beyond the contents of the Bible, but they are most likely sects.
I can't do anything about how you interpret God's words as blasphemy([INAPPROPRIATE WORD REDACTED]), but your interpretation is probably the bickerings of those who do not understand Him, not that I understand Him much, either.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

([INAPPROPRIATE WORD REDACTED])

Bullshit.

The word I used was "bullshit."

...but your interpretation is probably the bickerings of those who do not understand Him, not that I understand Him much, either.

So, by your own admission, your interpretation must also be mere "bickerings." Else, you claim to know the mind of God.

Which, you know, you can't because God's mind is incomprehensible to us. Was your point to demonstrate that Christianity specifically (and religion in general) is just nonsensical "bickering?" Congrats, you've done it.

[Gim]

So, by your own admission, your interpretation must also be mere "bickerings." Else, you claim to know the mind of God.

Well, I cannot claim to know God's plans, only those that are stated in the Bible, written by God.

Which, you know, you can't because God's mind is incomprehensible to us. Was your point was to demonstrate that Christianity specifically (and religion in general) is just nonsensical "bickering?" Congrats, you've done it.

No.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Well, I cannot claim to know God's plans, only those that are stated in the Bible, written by God.

The problem, of course, with assuming that the Bible is an accurate reflection of God's plan/will is that the Bible was written (and re-written, complied, re-compiled many many times over millennia) by humans.

And humans are incapable of comprehending God's plan/will.

Remember?

No.

Yes.

Either the claim "God's plan is beyond the comprehension of humans" is true, and so the content of Christianity must be empty and useless. There is no point in bothering with it if I cannot possibly comprehend it.

or

the claim "God's plan is comprehensible to humans" is true, and so Christianity is burdened with having to explain the content of the "plan" by which an all-loving God willingly and intentionally created a universe where innocent infants get bone cancer, raped to death, or die of AIDS.

One would hope that we'd go for option two, since, although probably impossibly difficult to actually accomplish to the satisfaction of any human who isn't psychotic, it would at least reflect an honest intellectual exercise. Since option one is just the stage conjuror's cop-out answer.

[Gim]

And humans are incapable of comprehending God's plan/will.

Remember?

I never said they are incapable of knowing God's plan entirely. They can still read words of God.

Yes.

Either the claim "God's plan is beyond the comprehension of humans" is true, and so the content of Christianity must be empty and useless.

or

the claim "God's plan is comprehensible to humans" is true, and so Christianity is burdened with having to explain the content of the "plan" by which an all-loving God willingly and intentionally created a universe where innocent infants get bone cancer, raped to death, or die of AIDS.

One would hope that we'd go for option two, since, although probably impossibly difficult to actually accomplish to the satisfaction of any human who isn't psychotic, it would at least reflect an honest intellectual exercise. Where option one is just the stage conjuror's cop-out answer.

Why don't you try praying to God first? Making erroneous conclusions about Him, just because you've seen people suffer seems slightly childish to me.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, I cannot claim to know God's plans, only those that are stated in the Bible, written by God.

The problem, of course, with assuming that the Bible is an accurate reflection of God's plan/will is that the Bible was written (and re-written, complied, re-compiled many many times over millennia) by humans.

And humans are incapable of comprehending God's plan/will.

Remember?

No.

Yes.

Either the claim "God's plan is beyond the comprehension of humans" is true, and so the content of Christianity must be empty and useless. There is no point in bothering with it if I cannot possibly comprehend it.

or

the claim "God's plan is comprehensible to humans" is true, and so Christianity is burdened with having to explain the content of the "plan" by which an all-loving God willingly and intentionally created a universe where innocent infants get bone cancer, raped to death, or die of AIDS.

One would hope that we'd go for option two, since, although probably impossibly difficult to actually accomplish to the satisfaction of any human who isn't psychotic, it would at least reflect an honest intellectual exercise. Since option one is just the stage conjuror's cop-out answer.

Always the problem with engaging theological discussions with atheists. You think in such 2 dimensional terms.

[Gim]

Always the problem with engaging theological discussions with atheists. You think in such 2 dimensional terms.

[Wallenburg]

Why don't you try praying to God first? Making erroneous conclusions about Him, just because you've seen people suffer seems slightly childish to me.

I prayed to God for fourteen years. Didn't do one bit of good.

[Gim]

Why don't you try praying to God first? Making erroneous conclusions about Him, just because you've seen people suffer seems slightly childish to me.

I prayed to God for fourteen years. Didn't do one bit of good.

I prayed for seven years, and I got a response. Some people take longer for God to speak to them. Don't lose hope.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

I never said they are incapable of knowing God's plan entirely.

You did actually:

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself. However, in the Bible, he states numerous times that is for the greater good of us.

Emphasis added, of course. Your full statement is also self-contradictory, since the Bible we have was physically written by humans. And since "[humans] cannot know by our own level of comprehension," the Bible is not a reliable or comprehensible description of God's plan either.

I suppose you could claim that God worked through the authors to accurately record part of his plan. But then, of course, this would mean that humans can be made to comprehend God's plan after all. Thus, I continue to await an answer to the innocent infants problem.

[Gim]

You did actually:

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself. However, in the Bible, he states numerous times that is for the greater good of us.

Emphasis added, of course. Your full statement is also self-contradictory, since the Bible we have was physically written by humans. And since "[humans] cannot know by our own level of comprehension," the Bible is not a reliable or comprehensible description of God's plan either.

I suppose you could claim that God worked through the authors to accurately record part of his plan. But then, of course, this would mean that humans can be made to comprehend God's plan after all. Thus, I continue to await an answer to the innocent infants problem.

That's why we read the Bible to understand. I meant as in you cannot think of God has in store for us. We need to pray for his response or read the Bible.
There's a passage where God gave his people the inspiration to read the Bible. People need God's assistance to comprehend.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Always the problem with engaging theological discussions with atheists. You think in such 2 dimensional terms.

Point out the specific flaw in the reasoning. Otherwise, argumentum ad hominem.

Show us your next trick!

[Gim]

Always the problem with engaging theological discussions with atheists. You think in such 2 dimensional terms.

Point out the specific flaw in the reasoning. Otherwise, argumentum ad hominem.

Show us your next trick!

I'm sure he'd explain.

[United States of Natan]

Simple enough because there are an infinite number of possible gods out there. There is no reason to believe your particular god is the real one. All those gods might have their own form of hell, so how do we pick when all of them have the same amount of evidence for them (none)? For all we know the real god hates those who worship any god, and likes those who worship none, so in fact you are the one who is actually putting yourself in infinite danger from that particular god. Of course, any god who puts people in hell simply because they do not worship them is a shit god not worthy of any sort of respect. That and, the very idea of worshiping anything at all is disgusting.

Well that and...since I don't believe in your god, as far as I am concerned it is as fictional as Darth Vader and Voldemort. Why would a fear a place that is pure fiction?

To be fair, I know that the barrows and draugr in skyrim are fiction and can't hurt me, yet occasionally I fear them to the extent that I've got to stop playing for a few minutes (only when by myself; I'm fine when I'm around other people). Because fear isn't rational.