Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

That's why we read the Bible...

...which was written by humans. Who could not possibly understand what they we're writing. Per your own claim.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

Weird, in 2004, before game 4 of the ALCS I prayed for the BoSOX to come back against the Yankees to win the world series

Just this past month I twice prayed for Derek Stepan to score a goal, and both times he scored within ten minutes, ending multiple game long dryspells.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

I'm sure he'd explain.

Resorting to ad hominem suggests otherwise. If a logical rebuttal was present, it would have been presented.

[Gim]

That's why we read the Bible...

...which was written by humans. Who could not possibly understand what they we're writing. Per your own claim.

Inspired by God.

Did you read that part?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

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

In my case, it was three days of complete silence. After holding a dying innocent infant in my arms.

Luckily, I still managed to happen upon an article about secular humanism before the suicidal ideation got too far.

("God intervened to save you!" in 3....2....1.... God gets automatic credit for the good outcomes, if not the infant with bone cancer AIDS outcomes, of course. Another one of those magic tricks.)

[Gim]

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

In my case, it was three days of complete silence. After holding a dying innocent infant in my arms.

Luckily, I still managed to happen upon an article about secular humanism before the suicidal ideation got too far.

("God intervened to save you!" in 3....2....1.... God gets automatic credit for the good outcomes, if not the infant with bone cancer AIDS outcomes, of course. Another one of those magic tricks.)

The Devil is responsible for the suffering. Try reading a Bible for a few days and come back and argue against us.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Inspired by God.

Did you read that part?

I did. I noted that divine inspiration still implies that God can make mere humans comprehend his plan, so God is still on the hook for explaining why innocent infants dying horribly. I said this right here:

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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!

Actually it's not, the argument wasn't a refutation of yours, by attacking your character (as what an actual ad hominem would be) but rather me pointing out the difficulty of navigating a theological debate based on the limited perspective of atheistic thinking. You conceive of life, as a finite resource, and therefore use premature death of children and infants as proof of God's immorality, by creating conditions of where beings can be robbed prematurely of the resource they should rightfully not be deprived of. You conceive of things only in the realm of the physical now, hence 2 dimensional terms.


The theistic approach doesn't conceive of life in that way, physical death of the body is not by any means the end of a human being's existence, so physical death bears no real moralistic value in and of itself. Morality regarding death is dependent on the conditions of how that physical death occurs.

So you're never gonna reach a consensus because you're arguing from a completely different perspective than the theist.

[Wallenburg]

In my case, it was three days of complete silence. After holding a dying innocent infant in my arms.

Luckily, I still managed to happen upon an article about secular humanism before the suicidal ideation got too far.

("God intervened to save you!" in 3....2....1.... God gets automatic credit for the good outcomes, if not the infant with bone cancer AIDS outcomes, of course. Another one of those magic tricks.)

The Devil is responsible for the suffering. Try reading a Bible for a few days and come back and argue against us.

Except when God directly causes suffering according to the Bible (for example, massacring entire cities, bringing plagues, killing rampantly and indiscriminately)

[A Humanist Resurrection]

The Devil is responsible for the suffering.

God, as the creator of all things, is responsible for the existence of the Devil. God, as an omnipotent deity, can stop the Devil at any time (including at the very beginning to start with) to prevent the suffering to begin with.

Suffering continues.

Either God is impotent to stop the devil (and thus isn't much of a god), or God is perfectly happy with the Devil existing and inflicting suffering (and is thus psychotic).

[Gim]

The Devil is responsible for the suffering.

God, as the creator of all things, is responsible for the existence of the Devil. God, as an omnipotent deity, can stop the Devil at any time (including at the very beginning to start with) to prevent the suffering to begin with.

Suffering continues.

Either God is impotent to stop the devil (and thus isn't much of a god), or God is perfectly happy with the Devil existing and inflicting suffering (and is thus psychotic).

That's his plan that you need to pray to understand.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Except when God directly causes suffering according to the Bible (for example, massacring entire cities, bringing plagues, killing rampantly and indiscriminately)

Including explicitly enlisting Satan to torture Job, in order to test Job's faith.

I certainly read that part of the Bible. Fucking psychotic.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Devil is responsible for the suffering. Try reading a Bible for a few days and come back and argue against us.

Except when God directly causes suffering according to the Bible (for example, massacring entire cities, bringing plagues, killing rampantly and indiscriminately)

Indiscriminately? There's a couple of times there where it points out that such killings were extremely discrimnate

[Gim]

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

Show us your next trick!

Actually it's not, the argument wasn't a refutation of yours, by attacking your character (as what an actual ad hominem would be) but rather me pointing out the difficulty of navigating a theological debate based on the limited perspective of atheistic thinking. You conceive of life, as a finite resource, and therefore use premature death of children and infants as proof of God's immorality, by creating conditions of where beings can be robbed prematurely of the resource they should rightfully not be deprived of. You conceive of things only in the realm of the physical now, hence 2 dimensional terms.


The theistic approach doesn't conceive of life in that way, physical death of the body is not by any means the end of a human being's existence, so physical death bears no real moralistic value in and of itself. Morality regarding death is dependent on the conditions of how that physical death occurs.

So you're never gonna reach a consensus because you're arguing from a completely different perspective than the theist.

This is a good explanation for Wall and Res.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except when God directly causes suffering according to the Bible (for example, massacring entire cities, bringing plagues, killing rampantly and indiscriminately)

Including explicitly enlisting Satan to torture Job, in order to test Job's faith.

I certainly read that part of the Bible. Fucking psychotic.

That's...not entirely accurate.

[Gim]

Including explicitly enlisting Satan to torture Job, in order to test Job's faith.

I certainly read that part of the Bible. Fucking psychotic.

That's...not entirely accurate.

*sigh*

[A Humanist Resurrection]

You conceive of things only in the realm of the physical now, hence 2 dimensional terms.

God apparently saw fit to created me with a set of senses that only work to comprehend and attempt to explain physical phenomena. If I'm limited to analysis in "2 dimensional terms" it's because God saw fit that it should be so. Ergo, the results I can comprehend (innocent infants suffering and dying) are fair game for critique of God's plan.

If a proper understanding of God's plan requires divine revelation of some sort, then either that plan must be comprehensible via the "2 dimensional terms" God itself equipped me with or that plan may as well be empty of content since I could not possibly comprehend it anyway.

So you're never gonna reach a consensus because you're arguing from a completely different perspective than the theist.

There will be no consensus because the Almighty cannot apparently decide whether my pathetic insect-like mind can know it or not.

[Wallenburg]

Except when God directly causes suffering according to the Bible (for example, massacring entire cities, bringing plagues, killing rampantly and indiscriminately)

Indiscriminately? There's a couple of times there where it points out that such killings were extremely discrimnate

Oh yeah, I forgot about those ones. Add those on as well, I suppose.

[Gim]

You conceive of things only in the realm of the physical now, hence 2 dimensional terms.

God apparently saw fit to created me with a set of senses that only work to comprehend and attempt to explain physical phenomena. If I'm limited to analysis in "2 dimensional terms" it's because God saw fit that it should be so. Ergo, the results I can comprehend (innocent infants suffering and dying) are fair game for critique of God's plan.

If a proper understanding of God's plan requires divine revelation of some sort, then either that plan must be comprehensible via the "2 dimensional terms" God itself equipped me with or that plan may as well be empty of content since I could not possibly comprehend it anyway.

So you're never gonna reach a consensus because you're arguing from a completely different perspective than the theist.

There will be no consensus because the Almighty cannot apparently decide whether my pathetic insect-like mind can know it or not.

God =/= Human.

God wants humans to find out his plan through prayer and faith. He has his own mindset that he discloses only to those in Heaven or Hell.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Indiscriminately? There's a couple of times there where it points out that such killings were extremely discrimnate

Oh yeah, I forgot about those ones. Add those on as well, I suppose.

It's stops being murder and genocide if it's in the name of God, silly.

(/s, just in case)

[Gim]

Indiscriminately? There's a couple of times there where it points out that such killings were extremely discrimnate

Oh yeah, I forgot about those ones. Add those on as well, I suppose.

Oh, how so?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

God wants humans to find out his plan through prayer and faith. He has his own mindset that he discloses only to those in Heaven or Hell.

I like how you happen to know what God wants when...

God's motive we cannot know by our own level of comprehension. The level of comprehension required would be that of God himself.

Are you claiming to be God now?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You conceive of things only in the realm of the physical now, hence 2 dimensional terms.

God apparently saw fit to created me with a set of senses that only work to comprehend and attempt to explain physical phenomena. If I'm limited to analysis in "2 dimensional terms" it's because God saw fit that it should be so. Ergo, the results I can comprehend (innocent infants suffering and dying) are fair game for critique of God's plan.

If a proper understanding of God's plan requires divine revelation of some sort, then either that plan must be comprehensible via the "2 dimensional terms" God itself equipped me with or that plan may as well be empty of content since I could not possibly comprehend it anyway.

So you're never gonna reach a consensus because you're arguing from a completely different perspective than the theist.

There will be no consensus because the Almighty cannot apparently decide whether my pathetic insect-like mind can know it or not.

Not quite. I may strike a man blind but that the fact I struck him blind doesn't validate his critique of my painting that he can't see.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Oh yeah, I forgot about those ones. Add those on as well, I suppose.

It's stops being murder and genocide if it's in the name of God, silly.

(/s, just in case)

What's wrong with genocide?

[Wallenburg]

Oh yeah, I forgot about those ones. Add those on as well, I suppose.

Oh, how so?

Well, it's a little tricky, but in short, I take my list of suffering that God has caused, and I append the newly mentioned instances to that list.