Can atheists really go to hell?
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Exactly my point: being able to become acquainted with things - whether concrete or by abstraction - makes all the difference. Many people aren't prepared to admit even that much. But the same applies to God: He is just as much a reality we can become acquainted with. And there are also degrees to it, levels of faith. One level is to believe blindly, but that doesn't last long against the onslaught of enquiry that belief requires.RosaMagika said:
If you can make claims about the characteristics of a tree, or a human being, you can certainly do the same for God. Nobody implies they know everything about a person when they claim they "know" them. It's not presumptuous to say you can get to know me, for example, if I declare that I'm willing to buy a ticket and visit you where you live. You'll "know" it's me when I identify myself to you when I get there, and then after you have identified me you'll already "know" a few of my characteristics and convictions just by reading what I have said here! After that, I'd be happy to clear up any misunderstandings or doubts about me.
That's why God insists on a relationship with Him, rather than bold claims about Him or our supposed knowledge of Him. That also applies to claims whether God supports one's actions or not:
Amos 5:14 Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is.
What I oppose is wilful hiding (don't take this personally, I'm not saying you are). There is usually plenty of acquaintance, a lot of rejection, but very little recognition. Escapism has it's merits, so does doubt and struggling with God, but if God has chosen a certain way to make himself known, and a person refuses to accept that way, he might be "agnostic" to other gods, but he's an atheist to this God.
Agnosticism eventually becomes confused with skepticism, and it's possible to be deliberately skeptic about everything - and to remain skeptic even in the face of as much evidence as can be provided. At a certain point it just stops being a rational position, that's all.
It's not that anybody has to die for something. Death, as you imply, has no intrinsic worth or meaning. It's just that God has given even death meaning. It becomes possible to say, for instance, "...to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). Jesus did die for something specific, but that doesn't mean we have to - only that we don't have to be afraid to.
Good as in not murderous, destructive, hateful etc, the measurement for the sake of this arguement is from the bible saying good is peacefulness and love, in fact this is one part of the bible i roughly agree with, though it is something that is more general human kindness and it is not unique to this 1 religion. Many people are 'good' without the belief of a god and many people that have a belief in god are not 'good' people by terms used in their own bible.
Yes he has chosen a certain way, by providing a book as proof of events that may or may not have happened, this is why most people see religion as 'faith' or 'spirituality', theres little else to go on but your own 'faith' and instinct, i do not 'know' god, and i would not claim to, i do not 'know' there is no afterlife, i believe there isnt on my gut instinct, if i am wrong and find out otherwise when i die, i will admit it(for what little good it does) as nobody 'knows' there is or isnt heaven/hell. In a way atheism is the same 'faith' that religious people have, i do not deny the possibility of god, only the gods that have been presented to us in fallible books by humans.
Afraid to die or afraid to die for something specific?
RosaMagika said:
What does the actions of your grandfather have to do with Christianity? Was your grandfather even a Christian at all? You said he was a catholic.
RosaMagika said:
Once again you are judging the Christian faith by measuring people. So what if most people who call themselves Christian are not loving? Does that change the truth of the scriptures that to love one another is good?
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
That's because it isn't belief that makes us good. Being good is a lifestyle - a general orientation away from chaos and evil and towards God. And we need to be more than just "good" to be moral, which requires real character. It is common to most religions because most religions realize the importance of being human (I almost wrote 'Ernest'Lemming3k said:
)The fact is "the Bible" did not invent the definitions of good and evil. It just puts it into context - human perspective and divine perspective.
The problem is that you only see the Bible in terms of proof or not. The Bible wasn't written as proof of God - the people who wrote it didn't write about God, they wrote about themselves, and their relationship with God. The probably never intended it to leave the hands of Israelites in the first place. Not even the New Testament is a treatise about God and theology - it started out as a collection of letters to churches. They also already believed in God. The Bible is a book about people - fallible people. Us.
Even among the Jewish sects there were still people who firmly believed in God, but who didn't believe in life after death. But Jesus didn't come with a complicated theological reasoning - He simply pointed them to God and their own beliefs. Don't underestimate the amount you already know and are taking for granted.
Faith is a lot like a baby rejected by his natural parents. He is adopted by a loving family, but spends his life looking for his parents and never finds them. Does he die without parents, or with parents? That difference, between biology and love, is similar to faith.
In specific for faith in God, or for eternity in general.
And i believe that lifestyle is possible without the belief in god, as you say it isnt belief that makes you good, its actions that make a person good, it only takes simple actions to be good and i dont consider god responsible for those actions i consider each individual person responsible, regardless of religion.
This is why to an extent i agree with all religious texts(i used the bible as an example but any would have done), i agree with the parts about common niceities and consider it human kindness, it was set up with good intentions, but it doesnt need to be followed to still have good intentions in mind, the rest of religions is what leads me to my belief, there are many inconsistancies between people of the same religion and their beliefs, many also claim their holy book as right and gods word when it is clearly fallible and written by humans as you say, if people cant even agree amongst themselves on their own religions i dont feel i should join their ranks, if i am wrong about anything all i can do is admit it when the time comes, i prefer drawing my own conclusions than joining the masses and have analyzed what many religions and their people say and drawn my beliefs from that, it perhaps is not a religions fault but the people that are guided by it, either way if it can be misinterpreted so easily it perhaps is not the best thing to base your life on.
Of course everything is only my opinion though and i dont claim to be 'right', just that its right for me.
We all have our own reasons for that, for me personally though i feel better when something nice happens to me than something bad, and i wish the same for others, i feel better about myself and other people feel better, so its simply to make the world a better place for everyone.
Adstar,
I don't feel called to judge about whether my gradfather was a Christian or not. He declared his faith to be Catholic, and this makes him a Christian, that's all I can say.
You are expecting me to be a better Christian than those who actually go to church every Sunday or on missions. How ironic.
Nobody said that to love one another is not good.
But you have, earlier, condemned everyone who does not believe in the Christian God to eternal Christian death.
If you say "God is love" and I claim that I don't believe in the Christian God, then I don't know love, according to your reasoning.
Do you, as a Christian, think me particularly bitchy? Cold? Senseless? Careless? Uncapable of love?
I don't feel called to judge about whether my gradfather was a Christian or not. He declared his faith to be Catholic, and this makes him a Christian, that's all I can say.
You are expecting me to be a better Christian than those who actually go to church every Sunday or on missions. How ironic.
Nobody said that to love one another is not good.
But you have, earlier, condemned everyone who does not believe in the Christian God to eternal Christian death.
If you say "God is love" and I claim that I don't believe in the Christian God, then I don't know love, according to your reasoning.
Do you, as a Christian, think me particularly bitchy? Cold? Senseless? Careless? Uncapable of love?
Jenyar,
Levels of faith. How cruel. Shouldn't there simply be faith or no faith?
But it is the context in which those claims are made -- and being aware of that context makes those claims relative and non-obliging.
I agree. I am just *able* to be with them, live with them, speak to them -- it is in that sense that I "know" them.
Okay, that's a good practical example. But it works only for a human-like God.
I can appreciate that view in the sense that humans are potentially able to perceive and understand and relate to *only* human things -- and *not* things pertaining animals and plants and rocks and all other (they only have their *human* *interpretation* of those things). In this sense, talking about God with human-like attributes is understandable -- as humans are turning to the "human-like side" of God.
If God is the Creator of Everything, and we are one of God's creations, I guess we can talk about God's creation only from our POV, we cannot make (valid) claims about other things -- as their creation is necessarily beyond our scope.
But I really hate it when humans go and claim that everything is within their reach and scope. It is this human vanity that I greatly resent, it testifies of how humans greatly lack humility and respect for other beings.
How can you tell? If someone could recognize, they would. And this "wilful hiding", as you call it, is not just like that. Those who "wilfully hide" simply cannot do any other way.
A person comitting suicide still thinks that they are doing what is best for them. The rest of the world may see it as ill, but the suicidal person doesn't.
The same goes for those who "wilfully hide": you may think it's "wilful hiding", but to that "wilful hider" it is the best and most normal thing he can do.
That is very stretchable, what "irrational" is ...
To you, maybe. To me, death simply is. In all its fulness and matter-of-factness.
Am I from another planet or what that I am satisfied to say about so many things that they simply "are"?! It's the isness of death, that gives it "intrinsic worth and meaning".
Can you feel the fulness of something -- but not call this fulness any names or give it any characteristics?
Can you smell a rose and not think anything at it -- can you just give yourself to the smell, and forget yourself for a moment?
Or do you write off such things as "passing pleasures"?
I'm not afraid to die. Which doesn't mean that I will just go and throw myself under a speeding train! I don't believe in Jesus or in salvation or eternal life or eternal hell -- but I am not afraid to die.
Hah, I must be like totally harmless.
Levels of faith. How cruel. Shouldn't there simply be faith or no faith?
But it is the context in which those claims are made -- and being aware of that context makes those claims relative and non-obliging.
I agree. I am just *able* to be with them, live with them, speak to them -- it is in that sense that I "know" them.
Okay, that's a good practical example. But it works only for a human-like God.
I can appreciate that view in the sense that humans are potentially able to perceive and understand and relate to *only* human things -- and *not* things pertaining animals and plants and rocks and all other (they only have their *human* *interpretation* of those things). In this sense, talking about God with human-like attributes is understandable -- as humans are turning to the "human-like side" of God.
If God is the Creator of Everything, and we are one of God's creations, I guess we can talk about God's creation only from our POV, we cannot make (valid) claims about other things -- as their creation is necessarily beyond our scope.
But I really hate it when humans go and claim that everything is within their reach and scope. It is this human vanity that I greatly resent, it testifies of how humans greatly lack humility and respect for other beings.
How can you tell? If someone could recognize, they would. And this "wilful hiding", as you call it, is not just like that. Those who "wilfully hide" simply cannot do any other way.
A person comitting suicide still thinks that they are doing what is best for them. The rest of the world may see it as ill, but the suicidal person doesn't.
The same goes for those who "wilfully hide": you may think it's "wilful hiding", but to that "wilful hider" it is the best and most normal thing he can do.
That is very stretchable, what "irrational" is ...
To you, maybe. To me, death simply is. In all its fulness and matter-of-factness.
Am I from another planet or what that I am satisfied to say about so many things that they simply "are"?! It's the isness of death, that gives it "intrinsic worth and meaning".
Can you feel the fulness of something -- but not call this fulness any names or give it any characteristics?
Can you smell a rose and not think anything at it -- can you just give yourself to the smell, and forget yourself for a moment?
Or do you write off such things as "passing pleasures"?
I'm not afraid to die. Which doesn't mean that I will just go and throw myself under a speeding train! I don't believe in Jesus or in salvation or eternal life or eternal hell -- but I am not afraid to die.
Hah, I must be like totally harmless.
Rose
I would love for you to be a true Christian better than many false christians who do these things.
Did i say you did?
I cannot condemn anyone that’s Gods area of authority. And if you reject the message of the Messiah Jesus you will be condemned.
Do you love your enemies? those who seek to do you harm?
No
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I would love for you to be a true Christian better than many false christians who do these things.
Did i say you did?
I cannot condemn anyone that’s Gods area of authority. And if you reject the message of the Messiah Jesus you will be condemned.
Do you love your enemies? those who seek to do you harm?
No
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Neither Adstar nor I am in a position to condemn you or anybody. And it's not ironic that someone who is not a Christian can understand love better than someone who calls himself one - it's tragic. I have frequently asked you to forgive those Christians who hurt you - not because they're Christians, but because you know better than them.RosaMagika said:
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
No, unless you claim to be an atheist. Because you know love, you already know enough of God to be able to recognize Him. The text that says 'God is love' goes:
1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
You can easily see that verse 20 above follows from this verse. It implies that those who love know God better than those who say they know God, but don't love. That's what I've been trying to tell you, why I said you understand.Ideally, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. Some people are more capable (or willing) to understand and apply their knowledge than others. Others might be afraid that reason threatens their faith, and so on.
That's why Paul asked those who believe that all food is acceptable not to eat certain foods for the sake of those who aren't yet convinced of it - it would be arrogant and insensitive, and more likely to destroy their faith than build it up.
Remember, we were created in God's image. And God left us no excuse not to recognize Him when he sent Jesus - who showed we can relate to God in the most human sense imagineable, without fearing that we've got it wrong. We can call God "Father" because Jesus made it possible, or in another sense, reasonable.
And, PS. It's not because God is a "man" that we call Him Father. It signifies a relationship, not a gender.
Last edited:
Why be an atheist then?
Didn't you say here:
"Yes we do have the choice, but unfortunately you cannot know it is the truth until the end, and your arrogant if you think your automatically right because its what you believe to be correct. If only one religion can be correct then the odds arnt in my favour, i'd rather enjoy what i got now."
If you claim to know love, where does your faith in it come from? After all, if it's only to make you "feel better" as you say, then what makes it different from people who become Christians because it makes them feel better and provides them with an opportunity to make the world a better place? Do you love perfectly all the time, or do you also make mistakes that you regret afterwards?Drugs can also make you and others feel better about themselves. What would you say to someone if they asked you why they need love? And why should they want to make others feel it?
Last edited:
Laser Eyes
Registered Senior Member
Before asking if atheists can go to hell you should be asking a question which logically goes beforehand. Is there a hell?spuriousmonkey said:
You missed the point i was making, by your standards as an atheist i cannot know love, therefore i dont know love, i disagree with your statement and believe i do know love.
Why must there be a need for faith in love?
I dont claim the love itself is any different from the love christians have, the difference is they believe it comes from god, i dont, i believe it comes from the individual, and its not just so i feel better its so other people do aswel, how can god be held responsible for that love if he cant be held responible for everything else including pain?
I take responsibility for any mistakes, if i hurt someone i apologise and ask for their forgiveness, not gods, i dont blame god when i do something wrong likewise i dont give him credit if i do something right, im an individual who makes their own decisions and has their own actions.
I feel this statement is you trying to attribute your words and values to mine which are very different, this statement is a very christian/religious thing, but regardless i shall respond:
I dont believe everyone 'needs' love, not everyone 'needs' love, some want/need it, some dont, some are happy without love and living a life killing people(sick but true im sure), i dont push any love onto people, thats what christians tend to do, they feel everyone 'needs' gods love, its for an indiviidual to decide if they need or want love and who's they want, be it gods(if they believe in him) or somebody elses.
I feel we are starting to cross over from my idea of 'kindness' to christian 'love', i enjoy my life, i dont need a god for that, i wish for others to enjoy their lives, with or without god is their choice, and im willing to do what i can to help those around me to achieve that. If they dont want others to feel good and for the world to feel peace then fine, i cant do anything to change their minds, its an individuals choice how they want to live and treat the people around them.
If there isnt a hell they cant go there, if there is they can, its that simple.
Adstar,
That smilie at my name is quite significant ...
But I am not a true Christian.
*You* quoted the Bible, the verses where people like me are condemned.
Apparently, I do reject it. I don't believe in Jesus and I don't believe in eternal life.
It follows that I will be condemned by your Christian God.
No, I don't love my enemies. To love them would mean, among other things, to send them birthday cards and have lunch with them and spend time with them on a regular basis -- all of which I do not do.
I do have a certain respect for them. I try not to underestimate them. I avoid them. I try to never make the first step to start a fight.
Well, according to how I understand the standards of the Bible, I am all that and more. I also lie, steal, whore around, betray ....
As far as I understand Christianity, whatever I do, is simply sin and wrong, as I have not converted to Christianity.
That smilie at my name is quite significant ...
But I am not a true Christian.
*You* quoted the Bible, the verses where people like me are condemned.
Apparently, I do reject it. I don't believe in Jesus and I don't believe in eternal life.
It follows that I will be condemned by your Christian God.
No, I don't love my enemies. To love them would mean, among other things, to send them birthday cards and have lunch with them and spend time with them on a regular basis -- all of which I do not do.
I do have a certain respect for them. I try not to underestimate them. I avoid them. I try to never make the first step to start a fight.
Well, according to how I understand the standards of the Bible, I am all that and more. I also lie, steal, whore around, betray ....
As far as I understand Christianity, whatever I do, is simply sin and wrong, as I have not converted to Christianity.
Atheist (or shoud I say, Christian atheists) are fooling themselves as well. Your claim to knowing love is the same as our claim to knowing God - based on faith. You experience it, you live it, you feel it. But have you ever tried to provide scientific evidence for love?Lemming3k said:
There's doesn't have to be, yet many people have it. "Love rights all wrongs" and "love makes the world go round" and so on are expressions of that faith. There is no evidence that love does anything that evolution hasn't achieved without it. Or no "extra-human" evidence, I should say.
It's not so simple. Are governments responsible for putting people in prison, or the police who catch the criminals? You could say the sentence comes from the government that makes the laws, and the "evidence" comes from the police who prosecutes the criminal.
When I go to a foreign country and instinctively obey their laws, it doesn't necessarily mean my obedience comes from their government. When you obey the laws of love, you acknowledge God's law, yet you reject Him as its author. You are ultimately responsible for loving, and when you cause pain, it is you who causes it, not God. Sure, God is responsible for our ability to feel pain, because without that ability we would never learn to avoid it. But we are born being conditioned for love, not pain. If it was otherwise, the Bible would have looked a lot more like the anarchist handbook.
Good, so you agree with my conclusion above. That's what is called obedience to God. You are doing the work, but rejecting the One who gave the order. On the surface, there just seems to be no difference between going through the motions, and realizing what you're doing.
God's love is our love. We can only give what we have received. Love wasn't invented by you, yet you say it's yours to give to whom you please and to keep from whom you please. How do you decide who doesn't need love? Do they hae to beg you for it before you give it - do they have to look "needy" first? Is that really love?
Who is your neigbour, Samaritan? Who deserves your love?
It's like saying you don't need love in order to love. It can only be true if you really believe selfless love is worth it. What about people who work at orphanages, emergency services, welfare organizations, nature conservation. Don't they just assume people need help? Or that you don't need God in order to breathe? True, but is "breathing" all there is to life?
How certain are you that you know what love consists of? Where did you learn it?