To religious people. Will atheists go to hell or heaven?

Post Reply New Topic

Beauty is universal because everyone has the innate capacity to recognize it in whatever form. Beauty spills across all boundaries, including language. Why would you deny it exists? Is that how miserable you are, that you must rain on everyone's parade?

Is this what atheism does for you? If so, I don't envy it.

If I can kindly disagree with you, from what I've read there many be genetically dispositions for certain forms of beauty (We like symmetry, uniformity, etc), that still does not mean beauty is universal. It is disposition, not a hard fast rule, and is only ubiquitous, in a weak sense, among humans; you don't find a female sheep beautiful, though a male sheep does.

I don't see how you can equate misery with him disagreeing with you. I can turn the argument around, and say "Why do you have to rain on his parade? Is that how miserable you are? Christianity must do that". As you can see, the argument doesn't pass muster, though its basically the same one you used, and in turn, it seems you are simply using an ad hominem to make his post seem weaker.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 02 Jun 2008, 4:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

how am i denying beauty? i'm saying it's subjective and changes from person to person and is no where near being any kind of basis for an argument.


basically your argument is "look at how beautiful the sunset is! it must have been made by god".

and that's basically the same thing as sun worship except you change the wording around to fit your religion instead of the religions of old that actually did worship the sun directly.

Christianity does not mean worshipping the sun in a ritualized, ceremonial way. "Son" and "Sun" sound the same but have different referents. "Stake" and "steak" sound the same, but former is a pole in the ground and the latter is a cut of meat. You can't get "sun-worship" out of the Christian Bible with any degree of
re-wording. Someone who is an authority on Scripture, like a Christian educator or parish pastor, would corroborate what I'm saying. And they'd look at you funny.

Last edited by slowmutant on 02 Jun 2008, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seriously: reading comprehension.

Wikipedia - Criticism of Bible

Where wording differs among otherwise similar accounts of the same events, the account more beneficial to the interests of the Church is selected. Where translation can yield multiple meanings, the more convenient translation is selected. Where entire accounts are too inconvenient (i.e. the apocrypha), they are simply left out. Always under the guise of accuracy, of course. On top of that, it is arguably the Word of God as written by Man, and the accounts of the prophets are certainly colored by the beliefs of their time. If it was once the Word of God, it is not unreasonable to suspect that mankind has done an imperfect job maintaining it.



Then pray tell, which version[s] does one have to follow in order to keep from burning in Hell? Are you open to the idea that a person who has certain Christian beliefs, but doesn't fully believe in the accuracy of any version of the written Bible, can even get into Heaven? You'll have to be a bit specific about what "Believing in the God of the Bible" means; its meaning tends to shift conveniently unless it's stated explicitly.



I didn't answer the question because I am not sure exactly what it implies. To be totally fair, while there are moments in the Bible where I am certain an accurate account of the divine has been recorded, the Bible is not the only source where I have experienced this. And there are many places in the Bible where I find hateful and violent text attributed to a divine source, which makes me prone to discard its accuracy. I hesitate to endorse a "God of the Bible" because I don't think the Bible always does of a very good job of describing God.

But I do believe (while remaining open to evidence otherwise) that there is some divine and benevolent force in the universe that one may call God. How that force is revealed depends on the nature of that force, and the limitations of mankind, through various sources. In all honesty, my saying "If there is a God" isn't just a matter of academic convenience; I will always have doubts without first-hand evidence. This is not the same as saying "I believe there ISN'T a God."



I don't think God is really that interested in whether we believe in Him/Her. I think God cares that we lead a good life, and knows that being closer to God makes it easier for us to do so. Mostly, I think God wants us to lead a good life of our own desire, and not just because we're told to do so. I don't think this merely qualifies you for a halfway-Heaven either. I don't think God is as fond of segregation as we here on Earth seem to be.



Naw, I don't buy it. On any matter worth debating, the people who are most certain, are usually the ones who haven't given the matter enough thought. And I don't accept quoted Bible verses as compelling evidence; if I did, I would have to accept verses that excuse sexism and slavery on God's authority.



Doubt leads to questioning. And anything worth believing in will reveal its merit under questioning. Humility gives you the courage to throw out the things you WANT to believe, even when it is inconvenient to do so. If you throw out doubt and humility, you'll have plenty of faith, but it'll be blind faith. And it's better to have NO faith than BLIND faith.

I think you misread his post. He was simply pointing out that many philologists believe that the Bible was an amalgamation of different pre-Christian belief systems, many which worshiped Sol.



Okay, so was I right? I took your post to mean what I typed above, and I think he didn't comprehend what you wrote also.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 02 Jun 2008, 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't read. It just mean I don't agree with you. Get over it.

Where in Scripture does it mention Sol? If you're talking about one of the ancient pre-Christian pagans, it is certainly possible. But who cares? Christians worship one God. Doesn't matter what many philogists believe.

Last edited by slowmutant on 02 Jun 2008, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In such a case, they are pro-Satan, be they only quasi-aware of that fact or not.

no but the fact that you derive completely the wrong message time and time again from my posts does hint that your reading comprehension is very weak.

Many pastors do not have the same level of education as a biblical scholar, or a philologist who studies ancient writings to find out where exactly they originated from. Many ideas inherent in modern religions actually are believed to have originated in earlier forms of worship. To state that a Parish Pastor is more of an authority on ancient scripture than one who actively studies it, instead of just reading it, does not seem to be logical. Can you elucidate further, as I might be missing the point.

I don't think he said that the Scripture's explicitly mentions Sol, though it is hinted at. The early forms of Christian art showed Jesus with a halo that was not yet an abstraction of the Sun, showing clearly that Jesus was somehow related to the Sun. This is just one of the many things Christianity borrowed from pre-Christian religions. As Christianity has modernized it has become abstracted, until you get the ball of light we have today.

What he is trying to say, and I may be wrong so I'd appreciate if Skafather corrected me, is that Christian beliefs are not unique, and so lose much of their value. They are simply another step along man's need to personify the world in the form of a divine being.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 02 Jun 2008, 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Why do keep insulting me? Obviously my reading comp is serviceable if I can participate in online forum discussions. I suspect you'd praise my reading ability if I agreed with you and wagged my tail.

So, when you see a sunset sky, you have to consult someone else to find out whether or not it's beautiful?
You don't have any sense of it whatsoever? Sorry, I'm not going to believe that.



Music itself is universally agreed to be beautiful.



My argument is that artists paint beautiful scenes.
And so, whenever I see a beautiful scene, I automatically think about the artist,
and what he was thinking when he painted it. Watching sunsets and elegantly-, eccentrically-designed
animals helps me know God better.

Last edited by Ragtime on 02 Jun 2008, 4:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

DING DING DING!


edit: but not so much personification but rather a need for the god of the gaps. it's moved from direct personification to a slight variant of it where it is not directly personified but the forces are explained in the form of another being doing the creating...though that was done in a political way to empower the monotheistic religions over polytheism in the early times...ie "my god created your god!".

Last edited by skafather84 on 02 Jun 2008, 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pastors are trained for years at seminaries. They know the Bible well enough to lead a parish. Philogists may know more history, but these guys are not ordained priests. And not every scolar is the kind of person who canpastor to churchgoers. Not every pastor is a natural scholar.