Why do atheists care about hell?

When someone make 2 statements that countradict each other (make each other impossible) one of the 2 statements is a LIE.
This is a logic game if a cannot = b then when you say a is true and b is true you are lieing (which one is a lie is unknown, just one of the 2 is false). That is proof of a lie (not saying that his quotes of scriptures are correct, just that if they are, his deduction of one of the two being a lie is also correct).

 

This goes back to something you said earlier. It is up to the person who makes a claim to prove the claim. At the same time, I believe it would be nice if stroll could provide a study of people's prayers vs placebo affect instead of making blanket statements.

 

not true.

 

I still maintain that people who make claims should provide evidence of those claims. On the other side of that coin, I have also provided reasoning that prevents me from doing so. My whole point of posting that claim was to show from my personal and private experience, that God does answer prayers. If stroll wants to reject the claim or even call it a lie, that is his business, but when he makes such a claim ("it is a lie"), then that claim also needs to be proven. I agree with you that it is not cool to make blanket statements in the form of accusations.

 

"someone" is a singular person. Matthew and Luke are two separate people. So, if there is a contradiction, it can be as simple a matter of two differing viewpoints. No-one living today were there to see both events (as displayed in Matt and Luke), therefore, anyone attempting to say that they contradict each other, is simply speculating at best. The problem with your claim that 'one of the two being a lie' discounts the POSSIBILITY of some unwritten variable that would give account to the variations. Without KNOWING, blanket accusations (regardless of logic used) is speaking from ignorance of what actually took place. Example: I see a car going down the street. From my vantage point, the car is blue. Another person seeing the same vehicle from the other side of the street says that the car was purple. Who is telling the lie? Either, or both? Upon closer examination, the car was actually blue on one side and purple on the other. Did someone tell a lie?

 

Your claim is invalid. If either of you would provide evidence of your claims then they show validity. Don't expect anyone to believe a claim you can't or won't back up.

 

What did Jesus say then?
If you accept a reference as valid you have to believe the that the words are historically accurate- meaning that it isn't just something someone made up or decided was said after the fact. Are you saying that this reference is invalid or that he did not get the biblical scripture correct?

 

What reference? Please rephrase your question. It is IMHO deceptive. Also please show the law, rule, regulation which states that an accepted reference has to be believed.


What did Jesus say when?

 

I asked you to show where I demanded you post peronal information and documentation.
There is nothing there about personal info and documentation, in the post you quote!

So, this was a false accusation on your part, or another lie.

What does your religious doctrine say about bearing false witness?

 

How wrong you are. What was you wanting me to prove?

 

No answer, hmm...
I would have thought believers who defend the bible as an authoritative document would be more familiar with its content.

 

Well, I see your patience is wearing thin, so here is the answer to your inquiry.
Question: What does your religious doctrine say about bearing false witness?
Answer: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Now, it would appear that you are inferring that someone has born a false testimony against another. Care to lay out the specifics in complete detail? Ya, know ... naming the person that you are accusing of being a liar... showing where the alleged lie is to be found... showing proof of claim that the alleged lie is in fact a lie?

As for your statement "I would have thought believers who defend the bible as an authoritative document would be more familiar with its content. "

Well, why didn't you think believers who defend the bible as an authoritative document would be more familiar with its content?

 

Not at all.

Done already.

Well, I effectively said that I DID think believers who defend the bible as an authoritative document would be more familiar with its content.

 

Then you have reached a premature and presumptive conclusion in stating "No answer, hmm..."

Where?

No you did not! You stated "I would have thought...."... so why didn't you think believers who defend the bible as an authoritative document would be more familiar with its content? "would have" implies that there is an underlying reason for not performing in a specified manner. What is that underlying reason for not thinking as you described?

 

This is stooping to a new low, even for you. Nothing could be more trivial and less conducive to intelligent debate than focusing on a figure of speech, which we all know and understand, and pretending that every single word should be taken literally instead, in order to avoid the actual point being made.

It's gotten to the point that every single thread here where people enter into discussion with you gets mired down in trivial, meaningless, pointless, semantic wankery, and unless you are just trolling, you really ought to be ashamed of your behaviour. Even if you are trolling, you're very mediocre at it.

 

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, you have seemingly expressed yours, but I will reserve the right to express my opinion of your postings for a later date.

 

My only concern for hell is that it is used to frighten people and I am sorry that religions feel it necessary to try to scare the hell out of people. Better they learn to develop moral behavior through the power of thought, not fear. It is a shame that some are frightened by fantasy.

 

It is strange that you make that statement highlighted above. I find it interesting that non-theists wage war against what a bunch of them say is a fantasy. Now is that war a war that is promulgated by fear, or do they actually believe that the fantasy is real and presents a real threat to them and thus justifies a war? If it is not 'fear' and it is not 'fantasy that is believed to be real', then where is the justification of the war against a fantasy?

 

Sympathy for the deluded is not war.

- - - Updated - - -

Sympathy for the deluded is not war.

 

Because is used as a threat against those who don't believe.

 

If you don't believe in the existence of hell, then how is it a threat? Would hell, in your opinion, be something akin to Alice in Wonderland? Is the Easter Bunny a threat to you?

 

it isn't but the believers never tire of trying!! lol

 

Let's say I tell my friend I own a machinegun. He doesn't believe me, not only because it would be out of character for me but also because of how hard it is for anyone to get hold of a firearm round here, and various other reasons. If I then said to him "I am going to shoot you with it", what should that be considered, if not a threat?

 

The belief in Hell was invented by Christians as it certianly isn't mentioned in the Torah which was incorporated in the Bible as the Old Testament. The Herbew religion based upon the Torah doesn't mention hell and basically doesn't even address the "after-life" but instead the the Torah focuses on "Olam Ha Ze," which means "this world."

It is interesting for the scholar that Christianity claims to be based upon the Herbrew religion and the God of Abraham but then goes on to reject virtually everything about the Hebrew religion. Its' almost like saying that the NBA is based upon the NFL because both have teams and use a ball. There's as mich in common between Christianity and the ancient Egyptian religion as there is with Christianity and the Hebrew religion.

Of course agnostics and athiests don't care about Hell because it was a construct of religion. We don't care about heavan either because it is also a construct of religion. Heaven no more exists than Valhalla. In fact, based upon the answers to the question, "What do you believe heaven will be like?" the answers I've received from "Christians" really represented a living hell to me. Sitting at the "feet of God" and singing "Kumbaya" for thousands and millions of years would drive anyone into insanity.

I've never heard a single belief in "heaven" that would make it desirable for eternal existance. Not a single one. Christians can't even explain what would happen to a person that was married twice, loved each partner with all of their hearts, and then upon encountering them in heaven if they didn't get along. A reunion with "loved ones" in heaven could certainly be a living hell. Besides, all of the good Rock and Roll musicians are going to "hell" so those in "heaven" won't even have good music to listen to. Seriously?

Christians are apparently looking for the "God Drug" that will make everything perfect both on Earth and in the afterlife but who want to spend eternity hooked on a "drug" anyway. I've seen herion junkies give up drugs in becoming "Christians" but they were still junkies. They were just "Jesus junkies" as opposed to "heroin junkies" but remained dependent junkies nonetheless. It is really a sad sight to see because they accomplished virtually nothing by switching their "drug" from heroin to Jesus. A junkie is a junkie regardless of their choice in drugs.

 

If I was going to send you to hell maybe you should feel threatened, but me saying you're going to populate ,what you deem to be, an imaginary place upon death, shouldn't be a threat to you, and if it is, maybe you need to change your PF "name" because if you're sarcastic, you should have a thick skin.