Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…I am satisfied with neither of these…

[/quote]

You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.

Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]

Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]

While I would have to think about it a whole lot more before I could agree or disagree with Push. I do see his point.

I feel like you are too hasty to ridicule it. Mainly because you haven’t thought about it. And I feel like this is true because had you thought about it, you would see his logic here. Right, wrong or indifferent, he has a point. The point comes from his perspective, therefore you’ll be hard pressed to see it, until you view the statement through the lens of someone who sees the world as he does, one created by God.

Again, he could be wrong, very wrong, but it isn’t a statement out of left field. Once just has to put on different spectacles to see his point. [/quote]

So is it like no God = no hope?
I find the statement that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion, meaning that there is no other end point when you go down that road, a little too all-inclusive or definitive.
So I would like to understand the logic behind that conclusion.
I can’t get into push’s head and figure out how he came to that conclusion, and I would like to know the reasoning behind it, because to me, it is quite a broad/bold statement to stand behind.

602

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So is it like no God = no hope?[/quote]

Not quite. It is simply “the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value.”

[quote]I find the statement that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion, meaning that there is no other end point when you go down that road, a little too all-inclusive or definitive.
So I would like to understand the logic behind that conclusion.
I can’t get into push’s head and figure out how he came to that conclusion, and I would like to know the reasoning behind it, because to me, it is quite a broad/bold statement to stand behind.[/quote]

Ah, getting into his head isn’t that hard if you try.

Let’s try and exercise and maybe I’m wrong here, so Push let me know:

Believers feel that all of life, all that we perceive, everything, is built, run and embodied of an Omnipotent creator.

Now, don’t spend your next few thoughts thinking about how crazy that sounds, or how to poke a hole in the idea. Actually take a scientific approach and think about the implications of such a situation, if it were true. (If it helps look at this like you look at the movie Matrix. Go along with the show for the entertainment.)

What would that being need to be? What would omnipotence really mean? It would mean that we, as mankind, couldn’t even begin to comprehend what it means. We are too fallible, too human. But it would also mean there is a reason for everything, a basis, a framework. We likely don’t understand all or even much of it, but it is there.

So because everything comes from this god, all our traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have their basis, origin and perpetuation from God. Note that these things are human constructs to you, made by mankind, for mankind, and valued only by mankind.

Now if they come from God, they are concrete. Man’s interpretation and understanding may change, but the things themselves don’t. If they are man made, they change with man’s perception. (Both of these explanations explain the same thing right?)

So now, lets assume that belief is wrong, there is no omnipotent being. Then what is the value of traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc? Well it is what mankind says the value is right? So that means the value can be anything people choose it to be right? If something is worthless today and priceless tomorrow, that means what was priceless today is now worthless tomorrow…

If something is both worthless and priceless, ultimately, because time passes and things change, what is its ultimate value? Nothing.

603

Speaking of atheism and nihilism, does anyone know of any literature–or any novel at all–outside of The Brothers Karamazov, that deals with the subject specifically? I have always wondered why it was not a bigger deal. It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.

604

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.[/quote]

Eh… Why explore it? In the end it doesn’t matter.

:wink:

605

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.[/quote]

Eh… Why explore it? In the end it doesn’t matter.

;)[/quote]

Hahaha, well done. That’s exactly what I had in mind. ‘This is the truth. But who cares?’ That kind of thing can be funny, if a little scary as well.

606

Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.

607

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

And there are atheist extremist assholes, no group is immune.

608

[quote]pat wrote:
Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.[/quote]

Yeah, I am going to have to block this site on my work laptop or something.

609

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So is it like no God = no hope?[/quote]

Not quite. It is simply “the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value.”

[quote]I find the statement that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion, meaning that there is no other end point when you go down that road, a little too all-inclusive or definitive.
So I would like to understand the logic behind that conclusion.
I can’t get into push’s head and figure out how he came to that conclusion, and I would like to know the reasoning behind it, because to me, it is quite a broad/bold statement to stand behind.[/quote]

Ah, getting into his head isn’t that hard if you try.

Let’s try and exercise and maybe I’m wrong here, so Push let me know:

Believers feel that all of life, all that we perceive, everything, is built, run and embodied of an Omnipotent creator.

Now, don’t spend your next few thoughts thinking about how crazy that sounds, or how to poke a hole in the idea. Actually take a scientific approach and think about the implications of such a situation, if it were true. (If it helps look at this like you look at the movie Matrix. Go along with the show for the entertainment.)

What would that being need to be? What would omnipotence really mean? It would mean that we, as mankind, couldn’t even begin to comprehend what it means. We are too fallible, too human. But it would also mean there is a reason for everything, a basis, a framework. We likely don’t understand all or even much of it, but it is there.

So because everything comes from this god, all our traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have their basis, origin and perpetuation from God. Note that these things are human constructs to you, made by mankind, for mankind, and valued only by mankind.

Now if they come from God, they are concrete. Man’s interpretation and understanding may change, but the things themselves don’t. If they are man made, they change with man’s perception. (Both of these explanations explain the same thing right?)

So now, lets assume that belief is wrong, there is no omnipotent being. Then what is the value of traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc? Well it is what mankind says the value is right? So that means the value can be anything people choose it to be right? If something is worthless today and priceless tomorrow, that means what was priceless today is now worthless tomorrow…

If something is both worthless and priceless, ultimately, because time passes and things change, what is its ultimate value? Nothing. [/quote]

Thanks beans, that’s gonna take me awhile to chew on. Got exams and exams and exams.
I’d still like to hear how push came to his conclusion.

It does seem that the priceless and worthless things holds true, at least to some extent.
The more useful something is, the more highly valued it probably will be, and this can fluctuate over time. So I don’t think I quite agree that ultimately the value of something or at least everything is nothing, as things change, it’s not that the old item/thought/belief/??? never had value, just that things have changed since its inception.
Value is context and temporally dependent.
Like an old rotor phone was something remarkable because at the time that was all there was. Compared to an iPhone or whatever device you currently use, it doesn’t seem like much, but that’s just because times have changed.

Thanks again for the response.

610

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

And there are atheist extremist assholes, no group is immune.[/quote]

Very true. And as Push has said, and I would tend to agree, an extreme atheist stance probably requires just as much faith to maintain as an extreme theist one.

611

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So is it like no God = no hope?[/quote]

Not quite. It is simply “the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value.”

[quote]I find the statement that nihilism is the inevitable conclusion, meaning that there is no other end point when you go down that road, a little too all-inclusive or definitive.
So I would like to understand the logic behind that conclusion.
I can’t get into push’s head and figure out how he came to that conclusion, and I would like to know the reasoning behind it, because to me, it is quite a broad/bold statement to stand behind.[/quote]

Ah, getting into his head isn’t that hard if you try.

Let’s try and exercise and maybe I’m wrong here, so Push let me know:

Believers feel that all of life, all that we perceive, everything, is built, run and embodied of an Omnipotent creator.

Now, don’t spend your next few thoughts thinking about how crazy that sounds, or how to poke a hole in the idea. Actually take a scientific approach and think about the implications of such a situation, if it were true. (If it helps look at this like you look at the movie Matrix. Go along with the show for the entertainment.)

What would that being need to be? What would omnipotence really mean? It would mean that we, as mankind, couldn’t even begin to comprehend what it means. We are too fallible, too human. But it would also mean there is a reason for everything, a basis, a framework. We likely don’t understand all or even much of it, but it is there.

So because everything comes from this god, all our traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have their basis, origin and perpetuation from God. Note that these things are human constructs to you, made by mankind, for mankind, and valued only by mankind.

Now if they come from God, they are concrete. Man’s interpretation and understanding may change, but the things themselves don’t. If they are man made, they change with man’s perception. (Both of these explanations explain the same thing right?)

So now, lets assume that belief is wrong, there is no omnipotent being. Then what is the value of traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc? Well it is what mankind says the value is right? So that means the value can be anything people choose it to be right? If something is worthless today and priceless tomorrow, that means what was priceless today is now worthless tomorrow…

If something is both worthless and priceless, ultimately, because time passes and things change, what is its ultimate value? Nothing. [/quote]

Beans, this is a magnificent thought, and I’m going to spend some more time today considering it. One question to ponder is, would a universe created by an omnipotent being look any different from one that arose spontaneously, and would we be able, with our limited understanding, to tell the difference? My brother sent me this link this morning, and your comment about the Matrix reminded me of it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix#.UoU3_GR4ayg

The gist is, how would we know if this universe is real, or just a complex simulation that appears to be what we think it is? What if our reality is the result of a being, call it God if you like, having created an elaborate planetarium of finite space for the purpose of studying how we react? The implications of this would be that all of our religions are merely a result of certain test subjects (humans) throughout the ages having been able to “see the Matrix” either through contemplation or observation, or through actual communication with the researcher.

The “problem of evil” could easily be explained in this way as well. What if the “researcher” is just a celestial sixth-grader, and our universe is his school science project? An eternal 11-year-old kid woul likely delight in shaking the ant farm every now and then, just to see what happens.

612

And wouldn’t the actions and statements of someone who has “seen the Matrix”, and who may indeed be “in on the cosmic joke” seem incomprehesible to those who haven’t had the opportunity to take the Red Pill?

613

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

And there are atheist extremist assholes, no group is immune.[/quote]

Very true. And as Push has said, and I would tend to agree, an extreme atheist stance probably requires just as much faith to maintain as an extreme theist one. [/quote]

The way I view it every religion and non religion are made up of humans and some humans have always tended to be asshole death dealers. I’m sure our prisons have agnostic atheists who view the situation as I do :slight_smile:

614

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Scientist base their beliefs on Mathematics which is entirely man made. Now to reconsider God it would take a huge amount of evidence to change my mind. I have 5000 years of evidence that proves God exists. Theory of Relativity only 60-70 years. Which one has more evidence?
[/quote]

Math is not “made”. It does not exist but is merely a description.

“Evidence” does not getter better through aging like wine.
In fact, ancient assertions most often are complete nonsense, lacking a robust scientific basis.

If you are determined to go by numbers, it would be hard to ignore animism. It’s been around the longest by far.
Monotheism is not even 3500 years old, if you start counting with Akhenaten.

That’s a small wave in the ocean of eon-old “Maddox-evidence” that supports Animism.

615

I just first want to say I’m heavily enjoying this thread. I haven’t spoken very much since my understanding is more high level rather than the details you all have provided. So, reading through these posts has given me a lot to chew.

First thing I want to ask is regarding the idea of multiple gods throughout history.

Obviously, the Old Testament is predated by other religious texts which allude to a god or gods which may or may not be similar to the Christian God.

Would it be fair to say that from a Christian’s view point, these other gods and/or religions were the fanciful creation of imagination and/or methods of explaining the unexplainable? In other words, the individual(s) responsible for those religions were not prophets?

Before I continue on this thought, could someone confirm or correct my statement?

616

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

God would only be ‘mean’ if we didn’t have freewill[/quote]

What about lightning striking and killing a baby? Or a sinkhole swallowing a small girl on Long Island?

I’m not saying that God did these things. I’m saying that, according to you, He knew that they were going to happen, and watched them happen without intervening.[/quote]

Why should he intervene?
And if God exists as does the afterlife, then death is not the end. Wouldn’t it be better to move on to eternal life than to live in this temporary perilous life?[/quote]

This argument applies to abortion as well. Why do you care about stopping it, if God shouldn’t care about stopping lightning strikes that have the same end result?

Is it, or is it not, “good” to live? To protect life? For life to flourish? Is murder, is premature death “bad”? Is it not a tragedy when an infant dies of SIDS, or is killed by a doctor at the request of its mother?

The position you took here leads to the same nihilism as does physicalism.
[/quote]
Actually, what I was trying to imply, though I did not do a very good job illustrating it, is that this claim is basically saying that God doesn’t act like you think he should therefore he doesn’t exist, or if he does he is a big meany.
What I am trying to say that what we perceive as ‘bad things’ doesn’t mean that God does not exist, nor that he is a big meany. What it does mean is that we have freewill and if he goes around wearing a cape and saving babies from tragedy, it would severely impose upon our freewill.
Bad things happen, they are going to happen if you are a theist or an atheist. This sort of judgement is based on a superficial view of behaviour and what we consider good and bad.

[quote]

Because it would require then to believe would it not?

[quote]

Just like, if I were walking through the wilderness with a pistol, and came upon a slavering coyote that was circling a human infant, about to eat the poor little thing, I’d put a bullet between the coyote’s eyes. I have the power to stop a baby from dying. Why wouldn’t I?

(In fact, I’d consider myself complicit in its death if I could have acted, directly and at no inconvenience to me, and chose not to.)

But that isn’t the point. The point is this:

How can can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God and natural evil coexist.

Either it isn’t “bad” for an infant to be struck by lightning, or it is “bad” for an infant to be struck by lightning and yet God can’t stop it from happening, or it is bad for an infant to be struck by lightning, and God can stop it from happening, and yet He chooses not to. Take your pick.

edited[/quote]

The conclusion I have drawn with respect to natural events is that they are neither good or bad. They are just events that are tragic. There may be many reasons we are not privy to as to why tragedies happen. We don’t and can’t know all the implications of a particular event, why they happen and what would be the implications if God chose to intervene. While on the surface it looks like a good thing to swoop in and save a baby, we don’t know what the overall impact of doing so is. So it may appear tragic, but it may be what has to happen, we don’t and cannot know. Perhaps if we had omniscience we could judge, but we don’t so we can’t.
God presumably acts on what he knows as we act on what we know.
As the author, the source of life itself He can do or do not. We are participants in life we have the moral obligation to do what is right in that role. If we had the knowledge and power of God and we were the source of creation, then our roles too would be different.

617

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do you really want God to intervene, if he exists? You want him to save a baby? [/quote]

Don’t you? Wasn’t that the point of the “Pray to End Abortion” campaign that the right to life group by my office just finished up with?[/quote]

It’s different to talk about that which we have control over than that we do not. We cannot stop natural tragedy, we have no say so over that whatsoever. We do have the power to kill one another or not. We don’t have the right to take someone’s life from them. We didn’t give it life therefore we don’t have the right to take it’s life, unless it’s a threat to our own or somebody elses.

618

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do you really want God to intervene, if he exists? You want him to save a baby? [/quote]

Don’t you? Wasn’t that the point of the “Pray to End Abortion” campaign that the right to life group by my office just finished up with?[/quote]

It’s different to talk about that which we have control over than that we do not. We cannot stop natural tragedy, we have no say so over that whatsoever. We do have the power to kill one another or not. We don’t have the right to take someone’s life from them. We didn’t give it life therefore we don’t have the right to take it’s life, unless it’s a threat to our own or somebody elses. [/quote]

If you were a Time Traveller and could go to Austria around September of 1888, and you came upon a young woman named Klara Hitler who was contemplating an abortion, would you attempt to talk her out of it?

619

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do you really want God to intervene, if he exists? You want him to save a baby? [/quote]

Don’t you? Wasn’t that the point of the “Pray to End Abortion” campaign that the right to life group by my office just finished up with?[/quote]

It’s different to talk about that which we have control over than that we do not. We cannot stop natural tragedy, we have no say so over that whatsoever. We do have the power to kill one another or not. We don’t have the right to take someone’s life from them. We didn’t give it life therefore we don’t have the right to take it’s life, unless it’s a threat to our own or somebody elses. [/quote]

At what level of control do we take this too?

An argument could be made that the use of fossil fuels is causing global warming and, as an effect, increasing the types and frequencies of natural disasters, which in turn, kill 1000s of people. If such an effect is proven true, do we then have a responsibility to not use fossil fuels?

What about smoking cigs? Proven direct link to cancer and significant portion of the population knows there is that risk. If you smoke, give yourself lung cancer and die, are you not in effect, knowingly killing yourself?

Or is it that our concerns of morality should only pertain to direct cause and effect relationship?

Just some thoughts out loud here. Wondering how far down the rabbit hole our responsibilities lie and who defines that.

620

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

Please link to a story about a Christian “extremist” strapping a bomb to his daughter chest and detonating her in the middle of a market? Or sending a down syndrome sufferer to the same fate.[/quote]

What about those extremist assholes that murdered the “witches” in Salem?[/quote]

You have any proof that even happened?
[/quote]

Seriously dude?
[/quote]

I have been gone for a day and this thing has blown up. I am trying to get back to all this. My point was that I did not believe this happened. My reasoning for my post was how people will look at History and accept some of it as truth and some not truth. We were not in Salem when it happened, but people say it happened, but that Jesus never lived and the Bible is a Myth and it never happened. The same proof to prove Jesus lived and the Bible is truth is the same proof that is needed to prove the Salem Witch Trials happened. This was my train of thought. Am I wrong?