Starboy

Thanks Vander, my point exactly. Heaven is not a meritocracy. It is a place for god’s sycophants and toadies. Perhaps you qualify.

Starboy

K

RJS:

See "Quantum Mechanics and Causality" under "Science and Skepticism".

ManM

MrDarwin,
If they have the strength and humility to do so, yes. Human freedom means that I cannot deny the possibility of hell. Faith in God's love allows me to hope that no one will remain in eternal torment.

Jamie_L
Your personality is what will make or break you, not a particular creed. Still, if you do not know God in this life, opening your eyes in the next one may be a painful and hard experience. But those who are accustomed to His light will find it easier to adjust. The frightening thing is not that we will be prevented from standing in the field. I find it far more alarming that we won't be able to hide under the trees.

While they might not deny God's existence, it will take a significant amount of humility for a strong atheist to be comfortable with being wrong all those years. Pride can lead to misery, even in the midst of paradise.

Jamie_L

And there it is! The fundamental disconnect between theists and atheists on this topic. First, however, lets make sure we use common definitions.

From the rest of your post, you seem to indicate:
DENIAL = "I don't believe God exists" or some variant.
REJECTION = "I believe God exists, but I want nothing to do with him."

Correct me if I have it wrong.

I find most theists operate under the assumption that even though most atheists claim denial, we really are rejecting God. That's just plain unfounded assertion.

Deny is almost too strong a word, but I'll run with it. Other people say "God exists." I have looked around, at the world, at religious teachings, at my own internal feelings, and come to the conclusion that I do not believe what these other people are saying. In that sense, I deny God.

I'm not sure why you think that is a separate thread. That's what this thread is all about. We DENY God, based on conclusions we have honestly come to about God's world using the reasoning tools God gave us. We are not rejecting him. Why should we be punished for this? If God wants me not to deny him, it's just a matter of giving me the additional information I need to change my conclusion.

Jamie

RJS

Sure sounds like the author of the above falls more into the REJECTION category. Unless such references to God are for the theists' benefit of understanding.

xeren

I deny Him, i do not reject Him. Jamie_L summed up the atheist position in this area very well just a post or two up from this one.

Why can't you understand why i deny his existence? That doesn't need a new thread, because i have already stated it: using the criteria in which i believe or disbelieve something, i have not found enough reason to believe he exists. How hard is that to understand?
If you mean the Christian god? Yes.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

Jamie_L

Sorry for the confusion, but I phrased my explanation of denial within the framework of the OP. That is, if we deny God, but it turns out we are wrong, why should we be condemned to Hell? My wording makes the assumption that I am wrong in my denial.

From my perspective, of course, that's a hypothetical question.

Jamie

Ron Garrett

Well a graduate degree in theology, concentration in biblical literature, and 35 years of ministry and study have not made me into Bruce Metzger (as most of my study was aimed at presenting the faith to an agreeable audience), but I do know enough to bluntly reject the above assertion, along with the arrogance and ignorance behind it.

I could say this is a common response from someone who either has not themselves read the gospels systematically and critically, or who has accepted some of the black box explanations for obvious contradictions, such as attempting to explain two conflicting geneologies, each tracing Jesus patrilineally as Jewish law then dictated, through Joseph, back to David, each directly conflicting and invalidating the other, by claiming one is really the line of Mary, per Origen, which sets aside the plain text and all the laws and practices of the culture. Of course never answering how Jesus could be descended of David if either line traces through Joseph who was not his father, Jesus being virgin born.

My experience is that if I play this game with you from Genesis to Revelation you will simply invent baseless explanations from whole cloth for each plain contradiction and be satisfied you have answered them all. This is not surprising, for we know from the beginning that you will uncritically accept such things as human language speaking jackasses, invisible armies of angels, the squareness of the earth, talking snakes, live men walking on the waves, dead men eating fish, god fingers writing on walls, etc. etc. none of which has ever been seen by you or anyone you can locate, all of which violates everything we do know about how the cosmos operates, all of which you pass through the magic box of "miracle" and consider such quite rational on your part and quite primitive, superstitious and inane when the same is done by a voodoo houngan that you deem ignorant and savage for embracing a faith as ludicrous and unprovable as your own.

Challenges such as yours have been made and answered, including on this site dozens of times, and such challenges are pointless since your entire belief system is built on the mindless rejection of empiricism in favor of magical thinking. You can hardly present a challenge to disprove what you accept without proof. Proof obviously means nothing to you and you have no intention of honestly evaluating any provided. In order to even be a believer you must set the bar of credulity low for your faith and infinitely high when your fantasy is challenged.

If you'd truly like a reference work you could start with .<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/104-7640561-7283151?index=blended&keyword=Biblical+Errancy&tag =thesecularweb" target="_blank">Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy</a>. Some of the critiques are a bit overblown since it is writen from the point of view of refuting the extreme inerrantist and literalist biblolator. There are resources in the library on this site as well. If you want to read the really tortured and ad hominem responses that pass for apologetics in the fundie community<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/" target="_blank">Tekton Apologetics</a>.

Or you could simply do what the last several dozen of your ilk have done:failing to find anyone willing to waste their breath, you will congratulate yourself that you have silenced the infidels with your daring bravery, and tell the tale of the Lord's mighty victory at the next praise meeting you attend.

And dear moderator, no warning necessary for my tone. I'll be quiet now.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Starboy:
<strong>
Heaven is not a meritocracy. It is a place for god’s sycophants and toadies. </strong>

Why would god send me to hell? Because there's apparently room for only one ego in heaven.

MrDarwin