Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

yeah but do you like, get a fresh page? or do you flip it over and continue on the back?

[Gim]

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

You haven't read the Bible, have you? You claim to know what Christianity and God are, while you never researched nor investigated into that.
Calling yourself above God, since God is a big load of hokum...man, I better pray for you.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

I'm also going to repeat this sub-thread here, in case anyone accidently missed it. I would be interested in the "theistic" approach to this problem as well:

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).

Although, I should add that if God is also omniscient, it could have reasonably anticipated that creating the Devil (which it did because it created everything) would result in suffering. But by creating the Devil anyway, God must have intended that suffering should occur. Ergo, God is responsible for that suffering.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

You haven't read the Bible, have you? You claim to know what Christianity and God are, while you never researched nor investigated into that.
Calling yourself above God, since God is a big load of hokum...man, I better pray for you.

Point out the flaws in the argument, or ad hominem blah blah blah.

[Gim]

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.

yeah but do you like, get a fresh page? or do you flip it over and continue on the back?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

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.

But you can condemn the man for his ignorance while simultaneously being the one responsible for the same, right? It's all well and good to claim to have a plan that you're under no obligation to actually describe, share, or demonstrate.

It's the stuff of classic con-artistry.

[Gim]

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.

But you can condemn the man for his ignorance while simultaneously being the one responsible for the same, right? It's all well and good to claim to have a plan that you're under no obligation to actually describe, share, or demonstrate.

It's the stuff of classic con-artistry.

No, God will understand and judge based on his sins.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

No, God will understand and judge based on his sins.

And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim.

Once again, God is the psychotic who pulls the wings off the infant for the simply joy of having the opportunity to watch it die.

[Gim]

No, God will understand and judge based on his sins.

And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim.

Once again, God is the psychotic who pulls the wings off the infant for the simply joy of having the opportunity to watch it die.

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

[Wallenburg]

And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim.

Once again, God is the psychotic who pulls the wings off the infant for the simply joy of having the opportunity to watch it die.

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

Come back when that's not your go-to argument.

[Pasong Tirad]

And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim.

Once again, God is the psychotic who pulls the wings off the infant for the simply joy of having the opportunity to watch it die.

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

He's not going to read the Bible. While we may consider the Bible to be the truth, they do not. Either elevate to find a way for both of you to be able to logically argue without the use of trump cards like the Bible and faith - faith isn't logical because it's not supposed to be logical. They demand logic, not faith.

[Gim]

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

Come back when that's not your go-to argument.

No, I can come back whenever I want.

[The Conez Imperium]

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

Come back when that's not your go-to argument.

Gim's argument is still valid and yours is a tenuous argument to make Wallenburg.

[The Conez Imperium]

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

He's not going to read the Bible. While we may consider the Bible to be the truth, they do not. Either elevate to find a way for both of you to be able to logically argue without the use of trump cards like the Bible and faith - faith isn't logical because it's not supposed to be logical. They demand logic, not faith.

Faith is logical when one considers the bible to be historical documents...

[Zalxero]

And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim.

Once again, God is the psychotic who pulls the wings off the infant for the simply joy of having the opportunity to watch it die.

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

Considering it's usually the case where most atheists have read the bible and most Christians don't. Have you read the bible?

Are you sure endorsed and commited genocide, murder, rape, slavery, war, forced marriage, and torture are all apart of God's plan?

"Stock·holm syn·drome
noun
feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor."

Most of the above crimes are possible things a kidnapper would do (murder, rape, slavery, torture, and forced marriage if he can get away with that). Are you noticing the connection here?

If God were a human, he'd probably even be thrown in jail by even his most adamant supporters on earth.

[Gim]

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

He's not going to read the Bible. While we may consider the Bible to be the truth, they do not. Either elevate to find a way for both of you to be able to logically argue without the use of trump cards like the Bible and faith - faith isn't logical because it's not supposed to be logical. They demand logic, not faith.

The thing is, he seems to be showing inadequacy of Biblical events and God himself, so I said that. No snark intended.

[Wallenburg]

Come back when that's not your go-to argument.

Gim's argument is still valid and yours is a tenuous argument to make Wallenburg.

"Read the Bible" is not a valid argument when the person you are speaking to has, indeed, read the Bible. And claiming that people are lying when they say they have read the Bible most certainly is not a valid argument. How is it a tenuous argument to point out these very obvious facts?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

They demand logic, not faith.

For the moment, I'd settle for anything besides just more ad hominem crutch work. Really.

[Gim]

*sigh* Come back when you read the Bible.

Considering it's usually the case where most atheists have read the bible and most Christians don't. Have you read the bible?

Are you sure endorsed and commited genocide, murder, rape, slavery, war, forced marriage, and torture are all apart of God's plan?

"Stock·holm syn·drome
noun
feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor."

Most of the above crimes are possible things a kidnapper would do (murder, rape, slavery, torture, and forced marriage if he can get away with that). Are you noticing the connection here?

If God were a human, he'd probably even be thrown in jail by even his most adamant supporters on earth.

Maybe you were asking this to the other person?

[The Conez Imperium]

Gim's argument is still valid and yours is a tenuous argument to make Wallenburg.

"Read the Bible" is not a valid argument when the person you are speaking to has, indeed, read the Bible. And claiming that people are lying when they say they have read the Bible most certainly is not a valid argument. How is it a tenuous argument to point out these very obvious facts?

Judging by his blase statement

"And since God made us capable of sin, this is again akin to striking a man blind and then condemning him for being your victim"

Ressurrection obviously has a very simplistic observation of a very complex narrative and by all extents, has not read the bible judging from that comment. I mean do I have to recite the narrative of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit by their own accord?

[Wallenburg]

They demand logic, not faith.

For the moment, I'd settle for anything besides just more ad hominem crutch work. Really.

That's not an ad hominem attack. They aren't attacking you, but rather are identifying what evidence you want. Besides, what's wrong with demanding logic? Logic is far superior to faith.

[Zalxero]

Considering it's usually the case where most atheists have read the bible and most Christians don't. Have you read the bible?

Are you sure endorsed and commited genocide, murder, rape, slavery, war, forced marriage, and torture are all apart of God's plan?

"Stock·holm syn·drome
noun
feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor."

Most of the above crimes are possible things a kidnapper would do (murder, rape, slavery, torture, and forced marriage if he can get away with that). Are you noticing the connection here?

If God were a human, he'd probably even be thrown in jail by even his most adamant supporters on earth.

Maybe you were asking this to the other person?

Nope, you. You seem to be the one who has not read your own bible, based, of course, on your limited references to it beyond "read the bible".

[A Humanist Resurrection]

The thing is, he seems to be showing inadequacy of Biblical events and God himself...

You cannot possibly know this to be true, since God himself is apparently unknowable:

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

I think this is the third time now that I've asked you to explain how you, personally, can know or evaluate another person's knowledge of God, if, as you claim, God is beyond comprehension.

[Gim]

Maybe you were asking this to the other person?

Nope, you. You seem to be the one who has not read your own bible, based, of course, on your limited references to it beyond "read the bible".

Say that to the other person. I'm not going to recite the entire blblical work here, just because you complain about it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

But you can condemn the man for his ignorance while simultaneously being the one responsible for the same, right? It's all well and good to claim to have a plan that you're under no obligation to actually describe, share, or demonstrate.

It's the stuff of classic con-artistry.

Except unlike said blind men you actually the capacity to see the painting,


I should point out that as much as Gim means well, he's conveying a very limited and specific religious tradition that doesn't really hit the mainstream of Christianity. So as long as you keep trying to refute him by proxy by arguing with me, it's not gonna get anywhere with me