-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nonbelievers to Hell!
- Thread starter Klaufi_Wodensson
- Start date
:thud:
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
Your response is negated by two simplef actors.
Firstly, Christianity is on the decline in America and Europe, while increasing in third world areas such as Africa and South America. Not to mention the rising incidents of crimes both minor and major committed by Christians, from theft to adultry to murder.
Secondly, the message is always attached to worshipping Christ, not "living a life of peace and love".
The Abrahamic concept of hell is nothing more than a theopolitical population control device. Nothing more, nothing less.
it's actually very different from jail.
prisoners are made aware of the amount of time they will spend in prison. they are made aware of appeals processes. they are generally certain that with cooperation, self improvement, and good behavior they can make parole. there is even potential for escape from prison. even in the unlikely event that someone is convicted and not given the option of parole, at least in prison you can die and be free from your suffering.
before one commits any crimes they are made very aware of the specifics regarding the punishment for disobedience. if anyone didn't believe in jail they could investigate. one can go visit a jail, s/he can feel the bars, s/he can see the inmates, s/he can witness the consequences of hir actions BEFORE being convicted of any crimes.
one can also be certain of which laws deserve which consequences, if the law doesn't appear fair or righteous one can take steps to change the law. in many countries the lawgivers are selected by the people that the law will apply to. and if you disagree with a law enough, there are other places that a person can go where the laws, or consequences are different.
so actually it's not like jail at all.
No -- well, the "scientific evidence" bit is going to be empirical, yes. However empirical evidence isn't the only kind of evidence; there is also analytical justification.
Example:
Bob: I have an elm tree that's taller than my spruce tree, which is taller than my holly bush. Also, my holly bush is taller than my elm tree.
Carl: No, that's impossible. If everything is in the same respect (on even ground), then what you're essentially saying is that A > B and B > C, yet inexplicably C > A. Therefore, your belief is false. This is because it's necessarily true that if A > B and B > C then necessarily A > C.
McBell
Unbound
So what happens if you have an analytical justification that relies upon unprovable premises?
Especially when you reject but they accept it?
You "debunked" my example as for the answer of the OP and your purpose, but I wasn't posting it for that, I was trying to show you (and maybe others), as I said earlier, that anyone can find different meaning to anything written, including verses from various holy books. I go off on tangents most of the time. And I am not really trying to convince anyone of anything.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You "debunked" my example as for the answer of the OP and your purpose, but I wasn't posting it for that, I was trying to show you (and maybe others), as I said earlier, that anyone can find different meaning to anything written, including verses from various holy books. I go off on tangents most of the time. And I am not really trying to convince anyone of anything.
Well, except yourself, of course.
I don't believe in a literal hell, anyway (most of you already know that). I believe that what is called hell is actually of separation from God. I don't know what that entails. But it kind of makes sense (to me) that if you don't believe in God then you can't be in a "union" with God.
I have to admit that some place of eternal torment by roasting over fires is not something I would want to send my worst enemy to. And really, if you think about it, there is really nothing outside of parables that say that people will roast in some eternal fire- that includes Revelation, the entire book is in symbolic form. And saying that, if I wouldn't send my worst enemy to some eternal torment, why would I believe that the God I worship would?
I have to admit that some place of eternal torment by roasting over fires is not something I would want to send my worst enemy to. And really, if you think about it, there is really nothing outside of parables that say that people will roast in some eternal fire- that includes Revelation, the entire book is in symbolic form. And saying that, if I wouldn't send my worst enemy to some eternal torment, why would I believe that the God I worship would?
Well ideally people should use an incorrigible foundation and build on that with reason. Once a disagreement occurs between two people, they can look at the premises and the chain of reason from one to the next to pinpoint where the disagreement lies.
Then it's a matter of debate about whether the reason has warrant to be believed.
Often it will come down to a hidden fault in reason: good example being Frege's forumlation of mathematics with naive set theory. Frege was no fool, and just like any one of us are capable of doing he formed an argument that had a very subtle flaw that took Bertrand Russel to identify (now famously called Russel's Paradox).
Rarely it can come down to something we've already mentioned: that of how much evidence is sufficient evidence. It's different from the question of what qualifies as evidence -- that is objective. Yet one amount of evidence may be sufficient for one person whereas it might not be enough for another person... sort of like the Greek paradox with granules of sand. Put a grain of sand on the table and you have a grain, put two there and you have a pair, but at what point do you call it a "heap" of sand?
If that happens then each party can pretty much only engage each other over why the amount of evidence is sufficient or not with each other (especially in light of other, related, corrolary evidence) and if they still disagree... they're sort of stuck with agreeing to disagree, I guess. C'est la vie.
Using an "unprovable" foundation, however, is known as presuppositionalism and is irrational unless the axioms are properly basic. (For instance, one need not justify the efficacy of communication in a debate considering the very idea of debate relies on it. It would be absurd for any party to say with words, "I doubt that words convey meaning" while simultaneously expecting their sentence to carry meaning.)
Last edited:
A better question might be. Why choose believers? It seems that their credulity is not heaven worthy. But thats just my opinion.
Well, you see, if religion didn't push the "belief" bit so hard they would have already bitten the dust thousands of years ago.
Any good meme or mind virus needs a method of self-sustenance and self-propogation.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yeah......
Many claim to know the Lord, do good things, even in His name...
and He knows them not.
Was it in this thread?..did I mention the possibility of non-believers entering heaven?
The op began with a discussion that displays a common dogmatic attitude,
held by people, typically hanging around congregations.
And I gave up congregations for that cause.
As a rogue theologian, I've come to find many people of many different beliefs have what it takes to enter into heaven.
It's not Christian only.
Have we digressed too far?....or has it already been expressed....
It's not what you believe.....it's why you believe it.
That's just it. No Christian is special; Christians are supposed to be humble. Most Christians consider themselves the same kind of sinners as non-Christians. They believe that Jesus saves them from their sin and they believe anyone else can be saved (outside of Calvinists, that is) if only they believe in God and repent (are sorry for) of their sins. I personally believe some things that most Christians don't agree with (which I don't want to get into now).
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Not all religions are based of faith.
Can you give an example of which religions aren't and what justifiable evidence they're based on, then?
Not all religions have a deity. If you did a google search, you could probably find out which ones.
Not all religions have a deity. If you did a google search, you could probably find out which ones.
I didn't mention a deity... I know there are religions without deities. Someone said some religions aren't based on faith, which I'm assuming means they are based on reason since faith and reason are pretty dichotomous. So, I asked them for which ones they were talking about and for the justifications those religions use to support their claims (since they're not based on faith). I don't see what deities have to do with any of that, especially since I didn't ask about them?
I just assumed that if someone has faith in a religion, it would be faith in God. I just wonder how many people of faith believe in a spirit but don't believe in God- that would be faith, too, I guess.
Yeah, or at least that was my assumption. Some religions approach something more like a "life philosophy" than what westerners normally call a "religion" but I'd wager many of the tenets are still believed on faith.