"F*ck you Jesus." "F*ck you the Abrahamic God." "F*ck you all the Gods that we all ever came up with".
I can never remember--was it Lord Byron who said that, or...
There, so much for the fear and belief. I am very clear on my intellectual position - I do not include God in my ontology. However I am agnostic about whether he actually exists or not - either way, until it can be shown to be so, I dont consider him to be objectively real. I am NOT agnostic on the epistemology of God - we can and someday will know God beyond any reasonable doubt. I am a weak atheist because I dont say "there is no God", merely "I dont believe in God". I am an apatheist because religion, theology and God plays no part or has no importance in my life beyond my discussions.
bold emphasis added by moi
Here's your first problem: You frame the issue only around the concept of the Abrahamic "God" character (male, capital "G"), not the general concept of a creator. This may not be intentional, but the result is that you're giving two, contradicting answers to the same question.
Your next mistake is in identifying yourself as an atheist and an agnostic, which is redundant, because agnosticism to the general concept of a prime mover is implied by your atheism toward the gods of the theistic holy texts. Conversely, if you say you are undecided as to the existence of the Abrahamic God specifically, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist (Yes, there is always someone ready to fire the old "well, you're an atheist in practice" platitude at you, but again, this is already implied by your agnosticism and goes without saying).
And if you'll indulge me for a moment, this idea of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" is a bunch of crap. You either believe in a god or you don't. If you don't know, fine, but to say there are varying degrees of disbelief? Spare me.
And yes, it is precisely that - Blowjob or kicked in the nuts. But it is blowjob forever or kicked in the nuts forever. The choice seems obvious, but can you happily take that while knowing that your son or brother or father or friend are being kicked in the nuts forever for a relatively small and finite transgression, if any?
But that's not how any definition of heaven or hell works. Heaven is bliss, while Hell is pain. Of course, it is precisely the way in which you pose the question that makes the concepts of Heaven and Hell entirely absurd, but you're offering a false dichotomy that makes it difficult to answer the question; if you're breaking the rules to allow Heaven-goers to mourn for their Hellbound loved ones, then what other variables are we missing? You see what I mean?
My point was that Hell is not a theological sensible concept, purgatory is.
And that belief or pracitice are not better criteria for this choice, actions are.
Purgatory is? I'm sorry, you're going to elaborate.
P
