That's a different subject. And hell is not eternal for everyone, by the way. Just like in real life, I guess
-
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!
What is the most common mistake that atheists make?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
That's a different subject. And hell is not eternal for everyone, by the way. Just like in real life, I guess
outhouse
Atheistically
Classical theism is nothing but a philosophical debate on the nature of the god concept, it really does not exist outside the classroom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
In modern philosophy, classical theism is a theism
And theist reject it more then all atheist combined. HELLO!
Perhaps, but personally if I go to hell after being told to believe but I don't, in hell I will regret not believing and consider it the mistake of my life. Wouldn't you?Except that this is by definition not a mistake worth attempting to avoid...
I personally wish I'm wrong and hell does not exist. I don't want anyone to go there
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
With what I have learned, your going to be just fine my friend.
For ancient people who created this, I have always viewed it as hell is for the living. Not he dead.
Life is what you make it, make it bad and it will be a living hell. Make it good and prosper and your life will be heaven.
You only get one real life, that is the one ancient theist were really trying to address.
You may think polytheism makes your case for deity special, but your reasoning is just as problematic as any monotheist. You appear to be enamored of making verbal statements that have little or no correspondence to reality, and hence, little or no meaning. For instance, you claim there are "celestial beings" who have a different ontology than either a monotheistic deity or a human. But all you can do when asked about the epistemology of these "celestial beings" is to insult the person questioning you. That was certainly classy, but your claims to knowledge will now only fool the gullible who are predisposed to believe you anyway. I wash my hands of you. Your ideas are not worth anymore of my time.
I hope you are right. Although it makes me angry having the slight possibility that some bad people can do whatever they want in this life without getting punished or promised to get what they deserve. The other day someone threw unacceptable words at me because they wanted to drive like crazy and I was in the way, and they got away with it.
What are you even arguing?
I'm not redefining anything away from anyone. Whatever you think is "my" definition of God it in no way detracts from the beliefs of anyone else. The fact is that when I say God (big G) I'm not talking about a man in the sky. I'm not talking about a being who inhabits a mountain, causes thunderstorms and has love interests. I'm talking about a non-contingent and completely simple creator. And that's hardly "my" concept. It is the concept of God in Christianity. So when you say that you believe in one less god than me, I reply that your objection is NA. And that's the OP's point. Your talk of Yahweh has nothing to do with anything, it's a red-herring. Everything you have said is mere distraction. You have not at all addressed the real topic; which is that the God of the monotheistic traditions is not in any way comparable to the gods of ancient polytheisms and to conflate them is fallacious.
No, I don't argue that "atheism is simply believing in one less god than you do," particularly because I realize that theism is not limited to monotheism. Therefore, your generalization is false, and it seems to me like a mere attempt to sound clever or sophisticated.
In other words, those "celestial beings" are just as real or fictional as "angels." Being that I believe that "angels" (whatever you mean by that, although I assume that you mean some sort of entities that possess transhuman qualities) are fictional, those celestial beings are as real to me as Lord Voldemort and Sauron.
And let's not forget that there isn't just a singular concept of a monotheistic deity, so it seems to me that you have fallen for a similar mistake to the one you are pointing out: you have implicitly made the assumption that there is the monotheistic deity rather than multiple versions of a one-god concept.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It is one concept of God in Christianity. There are multiple.
Indeed, I would not. I can't think of any atheist that conceivably could.
I personally wish I'm wrong and hell does not exist. I don't want anyone to go there
Trust me. That is not a problem, even hypothetically.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Ignosticism seems like a sensible response to these pointless questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Are you saying that (hypothetically) if hell turns out to be real and get sent there (God forbid), you wouldn't regret not believing? You don't mind getting there?
Hopefully.
Would I mind ending up in eternal Hell for that reason (not believing in God's existence)?
I could well insist on it, if given the choice. The alternative would be just wrong, after all.
I can't figure out if you're saying yes or no, but I understand
Reminder: Hell is not eternal for everyone.
Incidentally, from my Buddhist side I have often been encouraged (mainly by Mahayana teachers) to reflect on the merits of many of our most holy people who took vows to be reborn in hell.
Sure, one can and probably should say that their understanding of hell is very much at odds with that of a Christian or Muslim. And that is perhaps the point.
What use, if any, there is to the idea of hell beyond its effect on the motivations of people?
To the extent that it is useful as a motivator, how valid it is to use it as a reason to "choose belief in God"? Does that even make logical sense, let alone moral sense?
Or instead, what moral conclusions can people take from the exercise of assuming that there is a hell and some people may end up there? Which moral duties may come from such a scenario, and how can they be fulfilled?
Sure, one can and probably should say that their understanding of hell is very much at odds with that of a Christian or Muslim. And that is perhaps the point.
What use, if any, there is to the idea of hell beyond its effect on the motivations of people?
To the extent that it is useful as a motivator, how valid it is to use it as a reason to "choose belief in God"? Does that even make logical sense, let alone moral sense?
Or instead, what moral conclusions can people take from the exercise of assuming that there is a hell and some people may end up there? Which moral duties may come from such a scenario, and how can they be fulfilled?
I can't figure out if you're saying yes or no, but I understand
I am saying that even and particularly if it turns out that there is a Hell that I could get out of by "choosing to believe" in God, then Hell it is to me.
I would not regret it even if I had a choice - and it turns out that I do not anyway.
It is not worth having if we are not all in it.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Don't include me in that paradise.
I'd rather just get annihilated and be done with this whole 'mortality, possibly immortality' situation.
I'd rather just get annihilated and be done with this whole 'mortality, possibly immortality' situation.