burning flames

I have more info from my christian buddy. would love to hear the skeptical take:



Well its more of the same rant against hell that you always give. You refuse to even address the point I make repeatedly: that the free relationship of love that is made possible for those who do accept God in the end is of incredibly high value, and that it cannot be had without the possibility of hell. You might argue that, in spite of this, God should not have created beings with the freedom to reject him, that its not worth it. But instead you just keep harping "who benefits?"--a question I've answered repeatedly.

Secondly you constantly caricature what it takes to be saved ("he/she failed to find the politically correct faith") and why people are lost. You act as if it is because God doesn't make himself known well enough that people are lost. This is flatly contradictory to what the bible teaches, and so long as you are attacking Christianity, you are obligated to attack it on the grounds of what it actually says--not some straw-man built by skeptics. The bible says that we are without God because we deliberately suppress knowledge of him, so that we can worship other things.

burning flames

I wrotence people end up in hell, wouldnt they realize their mistake and want to choose god?

christian debator extraordinair wrote:

My guess is they wouldn't think of it as a "mistake" and would not want to choose God at all, in their state. But we aren't told much about the psychology of the damned. But regardless, this is your straw-man again--its not like "whoops, I didn't mean to go to hell!" People choose it. If there was any meaningful way in which, after the world is over, those in hell might come to want to "change their mind," I suppose God would probably let them. But this doesn't seem to be how the story goes, from the biblical point of view.

Corona688

You keep getting caught in minutae when the real proof is in the obvious.

The skeptical take is, who freaking cares? Until we're given any reason to think this god even exists any talk about it is pure hypotheticals. I'm not a skeptic because their internal logic is inconsistent. I'm a skeptic because, as far as I can tell, their hypotheticals are wrong.

If you want any other answer, you'll have to find a different kind of skeptic to ask -- a christian one.

burning flames

Im more into seeing exactly what is wrong with the christian scenario. I find it challenges me more and does a better job of proving christianity wrong

Corona688

Given that horses can fly, aerodynamics as we know it is completely wrong.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario. Aerodynamics as we know it tell us that horses can't fly; if horses can fly, then aerodynamics is obviously wrong. Logically, this is airtight! You'd be wasting your time trying to defend aerodynamics from flying horses.

There's only one chink in the armor of this impenetrable argument against aerodynamics: Horses don't fly!

You can't get anywhere arguing against incorrect assumptions. All you can do is point out the complete and utter total lack of flying horses.

burning flames

you dont know if there is no god. but you can reason that "if god was like the god in christianity, it would be no good"

I think that would get more christians thinking. which is what they need to be doing

Corona688

I don't know that there's not a Great Green Arkelseizure, either. If there's no evidence for something, the default is disbelief. You're not disproving their god with that argument. You're just showing them they don't understand their god, and most christians would tell you they never had the hubris to claim understanding of their god in the first place.

At best you'll convert one kind of christian into another. More likely you'll help them, by forcing them to make their arguments more airtight. The real problem is not just their logic but their standards of evidence. To assume that they don't think about it is the same assumption fundamentalists make when they think we'll convert once they tell us the good word. Most probably do think about it at times. Until their standards of evidence change, they're not going to need to venture too far from their comfort zones -- flying horses exist because this holy book says so, all that's left to quibble over is the color of their wings.

burning flames

it really is a pickle, the whole rejecting god thing. We cant really be free in relation to god if we cant reject him right?

and rejection leads to absense of god. I guess it makes sense...

but it doesnt seem right. Ill be back with why, right now my mind is just glimpsing the truth, unable to put it all into words...

the Radio Star

You can always get the God you want by playing Thomas Jefferson and taking a pair of scissors to whatever you don't like. It may be eaiser to simply cut out what you do like.