Do Atheists go to hell?

[St Giordano Bruno]

How would this scenario play out for those you believe in a heaven or hell?

[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]

:seesaw:

 

[Me Myself]

I am sure both atheists and Theists go to hell .

and both get out

 

[Iti oj]

Hmm What if an atheist dies in defence of islam?

 

[9Westy9]

Aw.

Then again, I can't think of many Christians that truly believe in the "gnashing of teeth, tearing of flesh" hell, otherwise they would be a lot more evangelical.

It sums up most Christians I know

 

[9Westy9]

Hmm What if an atheist dies in defence of islam?

It depends. How is he defending Islam? Why is he defending Islam? Does he follow the principles of Islam? Lot's of factors

 

[Cesar]

It is not so much about disbelief in Christ as it is about what Christianity calls a "sinful life", which we all, Christians and non-Christians alike, live. As a matter of fact, pretty much all that we do is sinful in nature: either the intention, the action or both.

Over the centuries, there have been several people trying to put sins into categories and to structure them based on their perception of their gravity and offense to God, Who is the absolute standard. For instance, Dante viewed lust and greed as lesser evils than fraud and treachery, leading to varying and suitable degrees of torment.

What I want to emphasize is that atheists do not perish due to their lack of belief only, since that would mean that disbelief would be their only sin ever, which is simply not true, although it is nonetheless sufficient.

 

[9Westy9]

It is not so much about disbelief in Christ as it is about what Christianity calls a "sinful life", which we all, Christians and non-Christians alike, live. As a matter of fact, pretty much all that we do is sinful in nature: either the intention, the action or both.

Over the centuries, there have been several people trying to put sins into categories and to structure them based on their perception of their gravity and offense to God, Who is the absolute standard. For instance, Dante viewed lust and greed as lesser evils than fraud and treachery, leading to varying and suitable degrees of torment.

What I want to emphasize is that atheists do not perish due to their lack of belief only, since that would mean that disbelief would be their only sin ever, which is simply not true, although it is nonetheless sufficient.

Disbelief shouldn't be a sin.

 

[Cesar]

Disbelief shouldn't be a sin.

Whether we agree on this or not is not as important as the erroneous claim that atheists are guilty merely because of disbelief.

 

[9Westy9]

Whether we agree on this or not is not as important as the erroneous claim that atheists are guilty merely because of disbelief.

not going to deny that. Especially when your definition of morality is perfection rather than an aim for perfection (I assume)

 

[Tristesse]

Whether we agree on this or not is not as important as the erroneous claim that atheists are guilty merely because of disbelief.

Thats not the position that I'm making. Example: Say we have two people, person one lives a good decent life and is a christian. Person two, also lives a good decent life, but is an atheist. Which person according to christian doctrine is more likely to suffer the torments of hell, the atheist or the christian?

 

[Cesar]

not going to deny that. Especially when your definition of morality is perfection rather than an aim for perfection (I assume)

To be honest, when I hear/read "morality", I think about the ideas with regard to right and wrong rather than "perfect" or "aim for perfection". You may want to use a substitute for "morality" in your statement so I'll better understand what you mean.

 

[Cesar]

Thats not the position that I'm making. Example: Say we have two people, person one lives a good decent life and is a christian. Person two, also lives a good decent life, but is an atheist. Which person according to christian doctrine is more likely to suffer the torments of hell, the atheist or the christian?

You're asking a very obvious and rhetorical question, one that even a non-Christian can answer easily if he/she has basic knowledge about Christianity.
What do you want to prove?

Sorry for double posting. I'll try to avoid that from now on.

 

[Me Myself]

You're asking a very obvious and rhetorical question, one that even a non-Christian can answer easily if he/she has basic knowledge about Christianity.
What do you want to prove?

Sorry for double posting. I'll try to avoid that from now on.

Not at all, it would depend bastly on the branch of christianity.

Some would say atheist goes to hell because he is too sinful anyways. Others would say God would have mercy on him. I´ve even heard he can have a chance to accept JC in his afterlife.

So you probably know only a very narrow fraction of Christianity and believe you know the whole thing.

 

[Tristesse]

You're asking a very obvious and rhetorical question, one that even a non-Christian can answer easily if he/she has basic knowledge about Christianity.
What do you want to prove?

Sorry for double posting. I'll try to avoid that from now on.

My point, was that if you're going to say that atheists are sent to hell not simply because they don't believe, then that point is refuted by the fact that a christian and an atheist can both live very similiar lives with regard to deeds done, and the atheist is still going to be sent to hell, for not believing.

 

[Cesar]

My point, was that if you're going to say that atheists are sent to hell not simply because they don't believe, then that point is refuted by the fact that a christian and an atheist can both live very similiar lives with regard to deeds done, and the atheist is still going to be sent to hell, for not believing.

I guess we're just not talking about the exact same thing. Christianity is not about your good works outweighing your sins. It does not work that way... actually, it that were true, then Christ died in vain and Christianity is worthless.
We do not get to Heaven based on virtues, otherwise, there would have never been any need for sacrifice.

Me Myself: We are already "(too) sinful anyways"... all of us. Again, if we say that God would just have mercy on him even though he was never a true follower of Christ, then the crucifixion would have been utterly worthless and useless.

I was referring to God's standard of perfection. None are perfect and therefore can't get into heaven. So I assumed that you'd view morality, or god moral standard, as perfect.

You're right. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[9Westy9]

To be honest, when I hear/read "morality", I think about the ideas with regard to right and wrong rather than "perfect" or "aim for perfection". You may want to use a substitute for "morality" in your statement so I'll better understand what you mean.

I was referring to God's standard of perfection. None are perfect and therefore can't get into heaven. So I assumed that you'd view morality, or god moral standard, as perfect.

 

[Me Myself]

Me Myself: We are already "(too) sinful anyways"... all of us. Again, if we say that God would just have mercy on him even though he was never a true follower of Christ, then the crucifixion would have been utterly worthless and useless.

"forgive them Father, because they don´t know what they are doing"

To me that sounds like your POV undermines Christ´s powers and mercy. A lot.

Least I didn´t read anyone there actually asked Jesus for forgiveness before he gave it to them.

 

[Cesar]

"forgive them Father, because they don´t know what they are doing"

To me that sounds like your POV undermines Christ´s powers and mercy. A lot.

Least I didn´t read anyone there actually asked Jesus for forgiveness before he gave it to them.

The Son of God made a selfless and compassionate request. It's a bit ambiguous, since we don't know who "they" are. Still, they may have repented of their sins and be saved.

 

[Me Myself]

The Son of God made a selfless and compassionate request. It's a bit ambiguous, since we don't know who "they" are. Still, they may have repented of their sins and be saved.

In any case, I think dying in the cross for all of us is far greater than dying in the cross for those who say his name, far more compassionate and far more powerfull.

You are free to think otherwise, but do notice yours it´s not the only form of christianity.

Differently to the example I gave were people think he died to repent all our sins, I think that he wenty to the cross as a sheep, showing us the holyness of non-violence. I don´t need methaphysics in it to see it as an immense teaching of de-attachment from one own´s body and to give anything and everything to God.

 

[Cesar]

In any case, I think dying in the cross for all of us is far greater than dying in the cross for those who say his name, far more compassionate and far more powerfull.

You are free to think otherwise, but do notice yours it´s not the only form of christianity.

Differently to the example I gave were people think he died to repent all our sins, I think that he wenty to the cross as a sheep, showing us the holyness of non-violence. I don´t need methaphysics in it to see it as an immense teaching of de-attachment from one own´s body and to give anything and everything to God.

I'd go into depth about your first statement, but that would be quite far from the purpose of this thread. Personally, I'm what could be called a "Calvinist" (and no, I don't see Calvin as a prophet, just another Christian) and I do believe that God chooses who will be saved and who won't. (And no, I do not believe that Chrtistians who don't believe in predestination are not genuine.)
I do agree that non-violence plays a part in His willingness to be crucified for the sins of many, but that is a limited view.

I'm leaving the forum (and the PC actually) for now. I'll return when I have time and keep posting.