Annihiliationism?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.

[Trinopus]

One problem is that annihilationism is often put in the context of a Great Judgement. i.e., I am hauled in front of God, who frowns upon me, pronounces his fury, while I wail and weep, and THEN he annihilates me.

Whole lot of drama... Little purpose.

Skip the judgement thing, and, yeah, I'm fine. It is, as you say, exactly what I expect anyway.

Trinopus

(All the unnecessary drama is one of my prinicple *philosophical* griefs with Christianity. Why beget a son, sacrifice him, raise him again, etc.? All that effort, when, God, being omnipotent, could simply have issued a writ.)

[John Mace]

I think most atheists couldn't give a shit how you contort your religious beliefs. Knock yourself out.

[AClockworkMelon]

This is actually what I believed when I was a Christian. Now that I'm an atheist it's what I think happens to everyone anyway. Utter destruction seems better than a literal eternity of suffering in my humble opinion.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Actually, I don't believe in Annihilationism, Hell, Heaven or an afterlife or so really it doesn't impact me one way or another.

[Little Nemo]

I thought annihilationism was the Zotlist doctrine that says that anyone who worships any deity except the Mighty Zotl-Xa will be destroyed in the afterlife. The only ones who will be saved are devout Zotlists and, of course, the atheists who never offended the Mighty Zotl-Xa by false worship.

[Der Trihs]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.Since all the real world facts and all the logic are still on the side of the atheists, no. It just means that your god is saving people for being gullible and killing the rationalists. It's like decanting people from the Matrix and then shooting them in the face because they didn't recognize they were in a simulation.

[fumster]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.I believe you are a pony. How does that affect you?

[Der Trihs]

I believe you are a pony. How does that affect you?
He'll have to worship Princess Celestia instead of Jehovah?

[medicated]

Stikes me as rather like listening to an argument about whether Superman could beat Batman in a fair fight. It might be diverting for a time, but eventually the inanity gets to me, and I'll go back to dealing with the real world and all the things that keep me busy therein.

[Sudden Kestrel]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.

More tolerable than what? :confused:

[Sudden Kestrel]

He'll have to worship Princess Celestia instead of Jehovah?

When good ponies die, their souls go to Chincoteague.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

More tolerable than what? :confused:

Than eternal conscious punishment.

[Der Trihs]

Than eternal conscious punishment.It's better to be executed than tortured forever, but both options demonstrate that the god you worship is an evil one.

[monstro]

It makes more sense if we do, as Christians tend to do, ascribe human qualities to God.

If you were to conduct interviews for who you want to live with for all of eternity, you'd just choose the good applications from the stack and toss the others away. What would be the purpose in calling the bad applicants in and torturing them forever, if you were a loving and kind person? It wouldn't make sense, correct?

Punishment only makes sense if a person is given another chance to do better. So if Hell is a temporary situation...and a person's soul is eventually released and allowed to try again, that makes sense. But an eternal hell does not make sense. Even when a person serves a life sentence in prison, they are allowed to recreate themselves there...to redeem themselves there. There is no redemption in Hell and that's why it makes no sense to me as a form of punishment. It's not punishment. It's torture.

If there is a Hell, that means God is not loving and kind. I cannot force myself to worship such a being, and it makes me not like the people who would believe those two things are compatible.

[Czarcasm]

Than eternal conscious punishment.To an atheist this religious concept is as nonsensical as any other-not worth considering at all. Since you are prone to believe things like this, how do you feel about it?

[An Gadaí]

I think I'd prefer an eternity of punishment to what's actually going to happen, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[Kobal2]

To an atheist this religious concept is as nonsensical as any other-not worth considering at all. Since you are prone to believe things like this, how do you feel about it?

That's also my take on it. I don't give a flying duck what folks who're into that old times religion believe us 'orrible sinners go or don't go. Nor do I care one whit what others (religious, atheists, agnostics and blueberry puddings) think about my own opinion on the afterlife or lack thereof.

What's interesting is that you seem to care. Might want to ask yourself why that is ?

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm okay with any and all of OP's speculation of what happens in the afterlife. Just keep your religion from annoying me in here-and-now.

[kanicbird]

It is a subset of the belief that you create your own destiny, including the afterlife. What you expect you will have. So if you belief in Annihiliationism that it what will happen. Sort of a spiritual suicide.

The problem many people would have is that many believe there is always a way out of the circumstances you created, which true Annihiliationism would not allow.

Is it more tolerable, yes, I would WAG very much so as it is consistent with the beliefs of atheism.

[Der Trihs]

It is a subset of the belief that you create your own destiny, including the afterlife. What you expect you will have. So if you belief in Annihiliationism that it what will happen. Sort of a spiritual suicide.

The problem many people would have is that many believe there is always a way out of the circumstances you created, which true Annihiliationism would not allow.

Is it more tolerable, yes, I would WAG very much so as it is consistent with the beliefs of atheism.
Not really since with atheism - or rather materialism/physicalism which seems to be what you actually mean - there isn't anything to annihilate. For anyone. No choice in the matter; you die and you are gone regardless of what you believe.

[Lightnin']

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.

It's not fear of Hell that makes us atheists.

I repeat- it's not fear of Hell that makes us atheists.

The reason we're atheists is simply because the Christian myth- or any brand of theism, actually- just simply doesn't make any sense. It's unnecesary. Adding in Annihilationism doesn't improve theism, in our eyes, as the underlying beliefs still don't make any sense.

[Czarcasm]

Is it more tolerable, yes, I would WAG very much so as it is consistent with the beliefs of atheism.I think I see where the communication breakdown began. Why don't you tell us what you believe are the "beliefs of atheism"?

[jtgain]

Since all the real world facts and all the logic are still on the side of the atheists, no. It just means that your god is saving people for being gullible and killing the rationalists. It's like decanting people from the Matrix and then shooting them in the face because they didn't recognize they were in a simulation.

I can agree with this to a point. Why would God want to punish people who don't believe in Him when he hasn't exactly made it a point to show that he is really even up there at all.

Now a Christian would say, "But He gave is ONLY SON. What more do you want!". Okay, but how do I know that? Because it is in a book? There are thousands of ancient myths. You need to give me something to go on here..

[Acid Lamp]

No, it's no more palatable than any other religious tripe. The problem with trying to contort religious beliefs to be more acceptable to an atheist is that they are all equally invalid regardless of how pleasant or inclusive they might be. All of our cumulative knowledge points to one conclusion: When we die there is nothing after. We simply cease to be. Now, it is of course possible, but totally improbably that there is something beyond death, but it is likely to be something totally unlike anything we could imagine. Either way, there is no reason for it to affect you conducting yourself as a sensible, rational being during the one lifetime we KNOW we get. It is sort of the inverse of Pascal's wager really.

[kanicbird]

I think I see where the communication breakdown began. Why don't you tell us what you believe are the "beliefs of atheism"?

I was actually thinking about this on the way to breakfast, thinking of perhaps a poll question.

Atheism is a grouping of beliefs under there is no god, while theism is a grouping of beliefs there is is a god.

As such Atheism is not a religion as theism is not a religion, but the subsets are, such as Buddhism and Christianity, and the various denominations from there, which are the religions. Then we get into personal beliefs and if you will spiritual relationships.

Atheism contains many subsets of beliefs just as theism does, sometimes I have heard such breakdowns ad new vs old Atheism, hard vs soft, and agnostic which actually could be put in either category as it's the basic I don't know if there is a god, you also have prominent Atheistic writers and speakers and their followers, those are the people Atheists will cite when asked questions, this forms a system of like beliefs. You also have many flavors of atheistic religions such as the many forms of Buddhism, and people who belief in the spiritual but not a god. Many of these are organized belief systems.

A question that is telling is what happens when you die, any answer but I don't know is a belief system.

[Little Nemo]

The problem is that believers see everything in terms of their belief. A Christian sees atheism as a form of anti-Christianity, which is no more meaningful than saying Christianity and atheism are two different forms of anti-Buddhism.

A religious person trying to define atheism in a religious framework is like a bird asking atheism what color its feathers are. Atheism explains it's not a bird and it doesn't have feathers. The bird says, "Yes, I understand you're not a bird but hypothetically if you were a bird, what color would your feathers be?"

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I was actually thinking about this on the way to breakfast, thinking of perhaps a poll question.

Atheism is a grouping of beliefs under there is no god, while theism is a grouping of beliefs there is is a god.

Well, is "I lack a belief in god" a belief? I lack a belief that I've won any Olympic medals or fathered any sons; is that a grouping of beliefs?

[kanicbird]

Well, is "I lack a belief in god" a belief? I lack a belief that I've won any Olympic medals or fathered any sons; is that a grouping of beliefs?

Is there is a god a belief. Hey I have met God, it is just what is*. So it's perhaps a starting premise for the sub sets of beliefs both grouped (religion) and non-grouped (personal)

* The scripture verse when God told Moses came to mind on this, I am what I am, interesting... anyway

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Is there is a god a belief. Hey I have met God, it is just what is*. So it's perhaps a starting premise for the sub sets of beliefs both grouped (religion) and non-grouped (personal)

I'm not sure that's the point.

For the moment, leave God out of it. I've met women who were over thirty years old; I unsurprisingly thus believe that women sometimes live past the age of thirty. I've never yet met a woman who was over thirty centuries old; I unsurprisingly lack a belief that women sometimes live past the age of three thousand. In your opinion, are those statements mere mirror images of each other, each with its own starting premise? Or is the mere lack of a belief the default?

[Kobal2]

A question that is telling is what happens when you die, any answer but I don't know is a belief system.

Yes and no.
Thus far, mounting evidence points to there not being any "soul" (or however you want to call it) inside us and disconnected from the body, as we'd been assuming all along. We've actually seen things like consciousness, love, empathy, anger and so forth being the result of chemical functions and reactions in things that go "bloop, bloop" rather than the property of something higher and loftier than flesh. We actually can manipulate these abstract feelings through material stuff like drugs and chemicals. Which points to us being machines made out of meat, no more and no less.
We've also seen all those things that go "bloop, bloop" stopping at the point of death. As such, it seems fairly rational to assert that consciousness, emotion and whatnot also stop there, end of the story.

Of the parts that supposedly comes later, be it ascending to the Pearly Gates, tumbling into the Abyss, spiralling away towards the center of the Galaxy, or even reincarnation, there is zero evidence whatsoever. So there's as much grounds to believe in them as there is to believe purple dinosaurs live in Detroit's sewers. IOW, judging by the existing hard facts, positive belief is much less rational than the belief in nothingness (at least until more facts come to light).

What I'm trying to say is that if you asked me "Why do you believe there'll only be maggots after you die ?", I could point to all sorts of biological minutiae, studies, facts and so forth that shaped this "belief", or rather the lack of belief that we're anything but meat machines. OTOH If I asked a religious person "Why do you believe [whatever it is you believe]", the only things they could give me would be "it says so in this book", "I like to believe this", "I refuse to believe we're only meat machines" or "the voices in my head tell me so". None of which are very compelling arguments.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

The OP seems to imply that non-believers are living life hiding behind the couch and watching life through gaps between our fingers. As if our non-belief is like someone avoiding a cancer screening because they might thus avoid having cancer.

You can promise me judgment and eternal damnation or 72 virgins and a mule. Either way, the palatability is irrelevant. In fact, the idea that there's some bargain to be struck kind of undermines the religionist position.

[kanicbird]

I'm not sure that's the point.

For the moment, leave God out of it. I've met women who were over thirty years old; I unsurprisingly thus believe that women sometimes live past the age of thirty. I've never yet met a woman who was over thirty centuries old; I unsurprisingly lack a belief that women sometimes live past the age of three thousand. In your opinion, are those statements mere mirror images of each other, each with its own starting premise? Or is the mere lack of a belief the default?

This would go to a belief in the human life span. A statement of a 3000 yr old woman would either fit into your belief system or not.

The mere lack of belief would generally indicate a questioning state, that is not the same as a negative belief. Is there a God? answering yes or no are beliefs, I don't know is a lack of belief. Is there a 3000 yr old woman, yes and no are beliefs, I don't know is also a lack of belief.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

The mere lack of belief would generally indicate a questioning state, that is not the same as a negative belief.

So, again: "I

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

The mere lack of belief would generally indicate a questioning state, that is not the same as a negative belief.

So, again: isn't "I lack a belief in God" a mere lack of belief, and thus not the same as what you're terming a negative belief?

[Little Nemo]

An atheist isn't somebody who says "I reject God."*

An atheist is somebody who says "there's nothing to reject."


*Okay, I'll grant that there are some silly people who become atheists to piss God off.

[kanicbird]

Yes and no.
Thus far, mounting evidence points to there not being any "soul" (or however you want to call it) inside us and disconnected from the body, as we'd been assuming all along. We've actually seen things like consciousness, love, empathy, anger and so forth being the result of chemical functions and reactions in things that go "bloop, bloop" rather than the property of something higher and loftier than flesh. We actually can manipulate these abstract feelings through material stuff like drugs and chemicals. Which points to us being machines made out of meat, no more and no less.

I would like to caution you to the causality error, just because you can get result X by doing Y does not mean that every time you get result X is it because of a Y.

Your argument is perfectly accommodated by a belief systems that give us, as creatures of the flesh, the ability to do the same things as spiritual being, but we use the physical world to do so.



OTOH If I asked a religious person "Why do you believe [whatever it is you believe]", the only things they could give me would be "it says so in this book", "I like to believe this", "I refuse to believe we're only meat machines" or "the voices in my head tell me so". None of which are very compelling arguments.

This is a strawman argument.

Throughout time and ongoing today God, angels and the like are coming to their children (us) in person and helping us along. They do not chose to us your preferred method of contact - your assumption that if they exist you would have hard evidence is in error. They are living very highly intelligent beings and they are in control, not us.

Your basic argument is with people who have not known God or the angels, but taking the word of others who follow them, but you are claiming your point against those who know God. And You actually do the same thing as who you are arguing against by citing others and books by man claiming there is very little chance that there is a soul.

[kanicbird]

*Okay, I'll grant that there are some silly people who become atheists to piss God off.

LOL Glad I put the coffee down b4 I read this or you would have owed me a keyboard :D

[Czarcasm]

And You actually do the same thing as who you are arguing against by citing others and books by man claiming there is very little chance that there is a soul.Where did he(or anyone else in this thread) do this?

[kanicbird]

So, again: isn't "I lack a belief in God" a mere lack of belief, and thus not the same as what you're terming a negative belief?

I lack a belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica at this moment. That is different then saying that I do not belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica.

Atheism is in the corner of already decided. Once you have accepted atheism (or Theism) you have accepted a belief that you will use to help define your world. The word Atheism comes from 'no god'.

[kanicbird]

Where did he(or anyone else in this thread) do this?

From here:

mounting evidence points to there not being any "soul"

Where did Kobal2 find out about this evidence?

[Kobal2]

Your argument is perfectly accommodated by a belief systems that give us, as creatures of the flesh, the ability to do the same things as spiritual being, but we use the physical world to do so.

Which assumes the existence of "spiritual beings", and there being a "spiritual world" where they can do whatever it is they do without bleeping on the material radar.

This has not been demonstrated so far, to me or anyone else.

This is a strawman argument.

Throughout time and ongoing today God, angels and the like are coming to their children (us) in person and helping us along. They do not chose to us your preferred method of contact - your assumption that if they exist you would have hard evidence is in error. They are living very highly intelligent beings and they are in control, not us.
Your basic argument is with people who have not known God or the angels, but taking the word of others who follow them, but you are claiming your point against those who know God.

That is quite a trick you pulled there.
First you accuse me of strawman-ing your position, then you opt to play the role of that supposed strawman your own self.

It's quite a spectacular way of shooting yourself in the foot, there. Points awarded for style, if not for substance.

[Lobohan]

I lack a belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica at this moment. That is different then saying that I do not belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica.

Atheism is in the corner of already decided. Once you have accepted atheism (or Theism) you have accepted a belief that you will use to help define your world. The word Atheism comes from 'no god'.If I were to ask you if Spiderman exists, what would you say?

Lack of belief is what defines atheism. It's the default state of humanity, and not an affirmative belief. Just as you'd say, "Of course there is no Spiderman." because there is no evidence for him really existing, atheists would say something similar about the God of the Abrahamic religions.

[Lobohan]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.I'm not an atheist because I think hell is a terrible idea. I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for God existing.

Since there is no evidence, why should I care what nonsense gullible people force themselves to believe?

[Kobal2]

Where did Kobal2 find out about this evidence?

I drank a fifth of vodka.
Then I got really mad, then I got sad, then I dropped like a log, snored a lot and forgot all about it. IOW, ingestion of a compound modified the way my meat works, which in turn tweaked the way my mind and thoughts worked. My spirit got touched by spirits (HA ! I'll be here all week, I'm afraid).
If my ego, or soul, or whatever you opt to call it was independent from flesh, that would not happen, would it ?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I lack a belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica at this moment. That is different then saying that I do not belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica.

So by your logic, if someone says "I lack a belief in God," that's different than saying "I do not believe that there is a God," right?

[kanicbird]

So by your logic, if someone says "I lack a belief in God," that's different than saying "I do not believe that there is a God," right?

Yes.

You can think of it as the wiring of the mind, the lack of belief does not have a filter on the God issue, the Atheist has the filter of No God, the Theist has a filter that there is God. Both will use that filter to define their world.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Yes.

You can think of it as the wiring of the mind, the lack of belief does not have a filter on the God issue, the Atheist has the filter of No God, the Theist has a filter that there is God.

Even though the atheist lacks a belief in God.

[Lobohan]

Yes.

You can think of it as the wiring of the mind, the lack of belief does not have a filter on the God issue, the Atheist has the filter of No God, the Theist has a filter that there is God. Both will use that filter to define their world.Everyone on Earth is an atheist until they are indoctrinated into some religion. If you grew up in India, you'd probably be a Hindu.

Atheism isn't a filter, it's the natural state of humanity.

[Bryan Ekers]

Presumably JudeoChristians also have a "No Zeus" filter, and a "No Thor" filter and a "No Vishnu" filter, and filters for every other deity, to explain why they believe those gods don't exist.

[kanicbird]

Even though the atheist lacks a belief in God.

There is a belief, the multiple choice questing has been filled in:

Is there a God:
a Yes ( )
b No (X)
c I don't know ( )

From the above you have the possible answers:
a = Theist
b = atheist
c = agnostic
and if the person didn't get the question then it does not yet exist for them - I believe this is where you are trying to define Atheism, but I don't see how it could fit here.

[Lobohan]

There is a belief, the multiple choice questing has been filled in:

Is there a God:
a Yes ( )
b No (X)
c I don't know ( )

From the above you have the possible answers:
a = Theist
b = atheist
c = agnostic
and if the person didn't get the question then it does not yet exist for them - I believe this is where you are trying to define Atheism, but I don't see how it could fit here.Actually no one knows if there is a God or not. So by your quiz there everyone should be an agnostic.

Not that that's what agnostic actually means, mind you.

Again, you don't believe in Spiderman because there is no evidence for him. That doesn't mean you have an affirmative belief in No-Spiderman. It means that you need evidence to accept something so silly.

[FriarTed]

As a Christian, I have little problem with Annihilationism. The Hebrew Scriptures certainly seem to support it. Only three passages in the New Testament seem to support never-ending torment as opposed to others which could be seen as annihilationist & those three passages are still ambiguous.

I do think there would be a Resurrection & Judgement, tho- to let unbelievers & outright rebels know they didn't get away with a thing, that they could have had Eternal Joy & threw that chance away. Of course, I do believe that future opportunity could be allowed those who would benefit from it. I mostly lean to the Eastern Orthodox version- in the words of Father Theodore Hopko, those who will persist in rebellion against God-Jesus will dwell in His Love and Grace for ages of ages, tormented by His Presence as long as they blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

[Bryan Ekers]

Wouldn't Eternal Joy (indeed, Eternal Anything) start to wear thin after a while? Even if it takes a million years before you start getting tired of it (and I'd be surprised if most people could handle it for more than a week), you've still got eternity more to go.

[Lobohan]

Wouldn't Eternal Joy (indeed, Eternal Anything) start to wear thin after a while? Even if it takes a million years before you start getting tired of it (and I'd be surprised if most people could handle it for more than a week), you've still got eternity more to go.But you aren't factoring in that God is Magic. He makes it so you still love it. Because, magic.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, if such a God wants me to be a devout loving worshipful believer, he could rewire my brain accordingly. In fact, what's stopping him from doing so either now, or upon my death or (given the scope of this discussion) after my death?

[Tristan]

"I love those wonderful X-1 robots!"

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

There is a belief, the multiple choice questing has been filled in:

Is there a God:
a Yes ( )
b No (X)
c I don't know ( )

But you've been saying there's a difference between "I lack a belief that X" and "I do not believe X". Or, as you put it:

I lack a belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica at this moment. That is different then saying that I do not belief that there is a guy named Tom Fiskaa trekking across Antarctica.

Bolding mine. If, as you say, there's a difference with regard to lacking a belief in Tom Fiskaa -- and a difference, as you say, with regard to lacking a belief in God -- then we need to structure your multiple-choice question to reflect that difference.

[kanicbird]

then we need to structure your multiple-choice question to reflect that difference.

Please post the multiple choice question to that structure.

In the way I structured it, the 'not yet have received the question therefor no answer' would be lack of belief, while answering 'no' would be disbelief. The former would indicate a open learning state of the mind, the latter would indicated a preconception that is used to define the world.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Please post the multiple choice question to that structure.

First, I'd like to see your answer to the following:

Do you believe Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica?

a) I do believe that Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica.
b) I lack that belief.
c) I do not believe that Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica.

Do you answer B or C or both or neither?

[kanicbird]

Everyone on Earth is an atheist until they are indoctrinated into some religion. If you grew up in India, you'd probably be a Hindu.

This is equating Atheism with a religion such as Hinduism is not a correct comparison. It is Atheism compared to Theism or Buddhism compared to Hinduism.

Atheism isn't a filter, it's the natural state of humanity.

Where did you get this from?

[kanicbird]

First, I'd like to see your answer to the following:

Do you believe Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica?

a) I do believe that Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica.
b) I lack that belief.
c) I do not believe that Tom Fiskaa is presently trekking across Antarctica.

Do you answer B or C or both or neither?

I would answer b only

I have no disbelief or belief, he may or may not.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I would answer b only.

Then, as per your "Please post the multiple choice question to that structure":

Do you believe there is a God?

a) I believe there is a God.
b) I lack that belief.
c) I do not believe that God exists.

[Lobohan]

This is equating Atheism with a religion such as Hinduism is not a correct comparison. It is Atheism compared to Theism or Buddhism compared to Hinduism. You don't understand what you read. Atheism is the natural state of humanity. People are then indoctrinated by others in their culture. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. If you were born in Afghanistan, you'd likely be a Muslim. If you were born in Norway, you'd likely not get any indoctrination and remain an atheist.

Where did you get this from?It is obvious. Christianity is something that you learn, like any religion. No person, as an infant knows anything at all about Gods or religion. They have to be (mis)informed by the people around them in order to believe.

You were an atheist once, until you decided to believe what you do. You did this without evidence, by the way.

[kanicbird]

Then, as per your "Please post the multiple choice question to that structure":

Do you believe there is a God?

a) I believe there is a God.
b) I lack that belief.
c) I do not believe that God exists.

Going back to Tom Fiskaa.

If a person showed you a photo and claimed it was a photo of Tom Fiskaa's trekking party taken yesterday in Antarctica:
(a) If you believe, you are more likely to accept this photo as true, and that person's credibility on (just) that issue is likely to increase
(b) If you lack a belief that picture may be used to help form a belief
(c) if you do not belief that picture and claim would tend to have you discredit the person making the claim.

(a) and (c) are filters, while (b) in a potential learning state

[kanicbird]

It is obvious. Christianity is something that you learn, like any religion. No person, as an infant knows anything at all about Gods or religion. They have to be (mis)informed by the people around them in order to believe.

You were an atheist once, until you decided to believe what you do. You did this without evidence, by the way.

I do agree that man teaches man religion, but I disagree that one is born (first self aware) a atheist.

You are incorrectly equating religion with theism.

[Lobohan]

Going back to Tom Fiskaa.

If a person showed you a photo and claimed it was a photo of Tom Fiskaa's trekking party taken yesterday in Antarctica:
(a) If you believe, you are more likely to accept this photo as true, and that person's credibility on (just) that issue is likely to increase
(b) If you lack a belief that picture would be used to help form a belief
(c) if you do not belief that picture and claim would tend to have you discredit the person making the claim.

(a) and (c) are filters, while (b) in a potential learning stateIt might be worthwhile to note that if a person felt it in their heart that Tom Fiskaa was in Nebraska, at a Denny's, ordering a Grand Slam. That wouldn't be evidence either way.

Yet others say just such a thing is evidence for religions.

[Lobohan]

I do agree that man teaches man religion, but I disagree that one is born (first self aware) a atheist.They certainly don't have any recognizable religious beliefs.

You are incorrectly equating religion with theism.Theism is religion for people who don't want to memorize stuff. :D

[kanicbird]

They certainly don't have any recognizable religious beliefs.

Exactly :) That's theism without religion

Theism is religion for people who don't want to memorize stuff. :D

:D Another LOL close call with the keyboard.

[Czarcasm]

Getting back to the OP, I have a counter-question that might show you where atheists are coming from:

Would you be more likely to believe in Santa Claus if I told you that he uses teleportation to deliver toys instead of a magic sled?

[jtgain]

A more important question: If I know Tom Fiskaa as my personal savior, will I go to heaven?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Getting back to the OP, I have a counter-question that might show you where atheists are coming from:

Would you be more likely to believe in Santa Claus if I told you that he uses teleportation to deliver toys instead of a magic sled?Excellent, except that may I suggest an even more on point analogy?

Would you be more likely to believe in Santa Claus if he were to give you nothing at all for being bad, instead of giving you a lump of coal in your stocking?

[Czarcasm]

Excellent, except that may I suggest an even more on point analogy?

Would you be more likely to believe in Santa Claus if he were to give you nothing at all for being bad, instead of giving you a lump of coal in your stocking?Much better. Thank you.

[Der Trihs]

A more important question: If I know Tom Fiskaa as my personal savior, will I go to heaven?Yes, but it'll be really, really cold. You'd be better off choosing a warmer savior.

[OneMissedPost]

What is the agreed definition of "Eternal Joy?"

I have difficulty believing about eternal life because I'm just full of questions about it.

For instance,

a) What is "Eternal Joy?"

b) Is everyone's "Eternal Joy" the same or different? What I like to do might be different than what someone else likes to do. Everyone has different hobbies. I like to go on the Internet and browse articles. Would I be able to do that in the after-life or would I have to do what someone else likes to do for all eternity?

c) What do Christians believe that eternal life is like? Do we spend an eternity skipping through roses or any of that stereotypical heaven nonsense?

d) Would heaven be "fun (for lack of a better word)?"

[OneMissedPost]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever.

I guess it's not as bad as non-Christians being tortured forever; however, non-Christians are still being punished. In my humble opinion, this is an unfair belief.

What if people were never introduced to Christianity? There may have been reasons why some people were never introduced to the religion, so why should they be punished?

What if people choose not to follow Christianity? In a sense, this is punishing people's free-will. We have the freedom to choose what religion to follow. Christians believe that God gave us free-will, right? Is freedom to choose a religion somehow excluded from free-will?

It's a reward system. Christians are being promised with the gift of everlasting-life. According to this belief, non-Christians have their souls destroyed (see the OP's definition of Annihilationism). It seems like bribery to me. Am I wrong?

[Bryan Ekers]

Twain's Letters from the Earth touches on the "eternal joy" thing, at least in part. It discusses how the stereotypical Christian version of heaven made no mention of sexual pleasure, but simply described a rather vapid, bland and, in short order, extremely irritating place that nobody would voluntarily stay at for any length of time, let alone eternity.

[OneMissedPost]

Twain's Letters from the Earth touches on the "eternal joy" thing, at least in part. It discusses how the stereotypical Christian version of heaven made no mention of sexual pleasure, but simply described a rather vapid, bland and, in short order, extremely irritating place that nobody would voluntarily stay at for any length of time, let alone eternity.

Ick! According to that definition, heaven sounds like my definition of hell.

[Revenant Threshold]

There's the slight problem that for me Eternal Joy would require no-one suffering eternal punishment, for which there is no crime possible which is worthy of it.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.
I get way more of a kick out of believers telling me I'm going to hell, so please don't change your fantasies on my behalf.

[kanicbird]

There's the slight problem that for me Eternal Joy would require no-one suffering eternal punishment, for which there is no crime possible which is worthy of it.

This I believe would be a statement of God too, as God Himself would be in Hell for the eternal loss of even one of His children. But this also goes for Annihiliationism as God would be in eternal grief over a child that is no more.

So neither is a satisfactory answer and both place the person at odds with God.

[Little Nemo]

This I believe would be a statement of God too, as God Himself would be in Hell for the eternal loss of even one of His children. But this also goes for Annihiliationism as God would be in eternal grief over a child that is no more.
My sympathy for God is greatly tempered by the fact that these are self-inflicting injuries.

[Skammer]

For a while I considered Annihilism, but I'm afraid I've fallen for full-fledged Universalism.

[gonzomax]

Than eternal conscious punishment.

That is some kind of sweet ,loving god you follow. Why would you?

[Revenant Threshold]

This I believe would be a statement of God too, as God Himself would be in Hell for the eternal loss of even one of His children. But this also goes for Annihiliationism as God would be in eternal grief over a child that is no more.

So neither is a satisfactory answer and both place the person at odds with God. I'm honestly confused. If I would be at odds with God for my "I cannot be eternally happy if persons are eternally tortured, or lost", then I don't see how that works with the command that I am to love my neighbour. If loving my neighbour means being, at the most, uncaring that they are either eternally tortured or cease to exist, then it's a considerably different definition of "love" than I am used to.

[Kobal2]

My sympathy for God is greatly tempered by the fact that these are self-inflicting injuries.

Well, those are always a symptom of deeper problems. Maybe God was molested when He was not even the thought of Himself yet ?

[septimus]

Annihilationism is the belief that in the afterlife non-Christians' souls are simply destroyed rather than punished in Hell forever. Do you think the idea is more tolerable-after all for atheists its no worse than what you've expected.

I don't know how I missed this exciting thread.

Let me see if I have this right. You're asking whether people who don't believe in the Christian God are relieved to learn that the Christian God won't punish them in Hell forever for their disbelief. Is that correct?

@ Mods - please move this thread to BBQ Pit or the Comedy Room so I can give it the response it deserves. :D

[OneMissedPost]

I don't know how I missed this exciting thread.

Let me see if I have this right. You're asking whether people who don't believe in the Christian God are relieved to learn that the Christian God won't punish them in Hell forever for their disbelief. Is that correct?

@ Mods - please move this thread to BBQ Pit or the Comedy Room so I can give it the response it deserves. :D

I have to agree that it could have been reworded a little better. :D I second the motion to move this thread to the BBQ Pit.

[OneMissedPost]

I have to agree that it could have been reworded a little better. :D I second the motion to move this thread to the BBQ Pit.

Woops! I made a typo, sorry. I meant to say, "I second the notion...." I didn't the edit button fast enough.

[OneMissedPost]

Woops! I made a typo, sorry. I meant to say, "I second the notion...." I didn't the edit button fast enough.

This will be my final correction (hopefully) to my own post: I didn't hit the edit button fast enough.

I get way more of a kick out of believers telling me I'm going to hell, so please don't change your fantasies on my behalf.

I get told that a lot too. I don't believe in hell, so it doesn't bother me much.

[Little Nemo]

Well, those are always a symptom of deeper problems. Maybe God was molested when He was not even the thought of Himself yet ?I've always had difficulty with the whole central premise of Christianity.

The story is that God created everything. Then he made a rule which mankind broke. So God punished mankind for breaking the rule. But because God loved mankind, he felt bad about the punishment. So he punished himself instead and that made it okay for him to change the rule.

The analogy I've made is that this is the equivalent to a father telling his kids that if they don't wash the dishs, he'll cut off their right hand as punishment. And the kids don't wash the dishes. But the father loves his kids and doesn't want to maim them. So he cuts off his own hand instead.

Why didn't he just say he changed his mind about the hand cutting? Why cut off his own hand? It was his rule - so if he decided it was wrong all he had to do was not follow it.

Same thing with God. He was the one he created Original Sin. If he decided it was too harsh, why not just end it? Why did he have to be crucified?

And, just to make this even less plausible, God is omniscient so he knew all this was going to happen back when he created the universe and made the rule in the first place. So even before God told Adam not to eat from the Tree, he knew he was regret doing it. Why didn't God just tell Adam, "There's the Tree over there. I'd prefer you didn't eat the fruit from that tree. But if you do, I'll forgive you because I love you."

[OneMissedPost]

And, just to make this even less plausible, God is omniscient so he knew all this was going to happen back when he created the universe and made the rule in the first place. So even before God told Adam not to eat from the Tree, he knew he was regret doing it. Why didn't God just tell Adam, "There's the Tree over there. I'd prefer you didn't eat the fruit from that tree. But if you do, I'll forgive you because I love you."

God wanted to teach us that if we disobey His Commandments, we will be punished. If God knew all along that Adam would eat the fruit, maybe He was just spending His time thinking what would be the best punishment for Adam.

You might as well ask this: Why does God allow suffering?

[kanicbird]

I'm honestly confused. If I would be at odds with God for my "I cannot be eternally happy if persons are eternally tortured, or lost", then I don't see how that works with the command that I am to love my neighbour. If loving my neighbour means being, at the most, uncaring that they are either eternally tortured or cease to exist, then it's a considerably different definition of "love" than I am used to.
Need to restate it:
You not being able to be eternally happy because of a soul in eternal suffering is also God's feeling towards it IMHO. The reason you would not be able to enjoy eternal happiness is God's reason also.

It's not that God is feeling along the same lines as you, but God is feeling your heart directly as His, your cry for the suffering He hears and He feels what you feel towards that situation. Your emotions in this are His.

I would also apply this to the annihilated, someone not suffering but eternally gone would also pull on God's heart and everyone who felt that loss of that soul would be God's feeling on it.

[Kobal2]

And, just to make this even less plausible, God is omniscient so he knew all this was going to happen back when he created the universe and made the rule in the first place. So even before God told Adam not to eat from the Tree, he knew he was regret doing it. Why didn't God just tell Adam, "There's the Tree over there. I'd prefer you didn't eat the fruit from that tree. But if you do, I'll forgive you because I love you."

I was actually thinking about this yesterday. Now, God sets up this obvious booby trap, "don't eat the fruit, or I'll know and you'll be sorry !". Predictably, Adam and Eve do just that, acquire the knowledge of Good & Evil and are made to be quite sorry indeed.

But what if it had gone the other way ? What if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit ? The wouldn't know what Evil is, would they ? Which means they and their offspring would go around happily doing horrible things to each other and feeling quite content about it, just as they were going about buck naked without a care in the world (one hopes there were no stinging nettles in the Garden). But you see what I mean, right ? Adam would be out there torturing small animals and then raping their corpses, just because he wouldn't know any better and it sounded like a good idea to pass the time.
How is that Paradise ? And if that's what God's original plan all along before we messed it up for Him, what the holy fuck, Dude ?

[Little Nemo]

God wanted to teach us that if we disobey His Commandments, we will be punished. If God knew all along that Adam would eat the fruit, maybe He was just spending His time thinking what would be the best punishment for Adam.

You might as well ask this: Why does God allow suffering?I don't have a problem so much with the idea that God allows suffering. To an eternal God, all of the suffering that is possible in a human lifetime must seem pretty small. Heck, even to people, it'll seem that way to us in an eternal afterlife. Let's say you had a really horrible life and were slowly tortured to death. As you're dying you're going to think the suffering you experienced was overwhelming. But then you go to Heaven and experience supreme joy. Now suppose after about fifty thousand years of total happiness, you happen to think back on your mortal existence. Is the few decades of suffering you experienced going to still seem significant tens of thousands of years later?

And God's perspective is a lot wider than that. He's experiencing the entire existence of the universe across billions of years. From a perspective like that, even something like the Holocaust is going to seem small.

[Little Nemo]

I was actually thinking about this yesterday. Now, God sets up this obvious booby trap, "don't eat the fruit, or I'll know and you'll be sorry !". Predictably, Adam and Eve do just that, acquire the knowledge of Good & Evil and are made to be quite sorry indeed.

But what if it had gone the other way ? What if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit ? The wouldn't know what Evil is, would they ? Which means they and their offspring would go around happily doing horrible things to each other and feeling quite content about it, just as they were going about buck naked without a care in the world (one hopes there were no stinging nettles in the Garden). But you see what I mean, right ? Adam would be out there torturing small animals and then raping their corpses, just because he wouldn't know any better and it sounded like a good idea to pass the time.
How is that Paradise ? And if that's what God's original plan all along before we messed it up for Him, what the holy fuck, Dude ?But if God did have a plan, why did he change it? And if he was going to change it, why did he wait several thousand years? There were millions of people living under the cloud of Original Sin and God knew he was going to repeal it. So why did he wait until 4 BC to manifest as Jesus? Why didn't Jesus appear in the Garden of Eden itself?

[Lobohan]

But if God did have a plan, why did he change it? And if he was going to change it, why did he wait several thousand years? There were millions of people living under the cloud of Original Sin and God knew he was going to repeal it. So why did he wait until 4 BC to manifest as Jesus? Why didn't Jesus appear in the Garden of Eden itself?Because God has an IQ of around 88. He's functional, but he just isn't very bright.

He's forgetful, prone to misunderstandings and occasionally confabulates to cover up his mistakes. Sad, really.

[Revenant Threshold]

Need to restate it:
You not being able to be eternally happy because of a soul in eternal suffering is also God's feeling towards it IMHO. The reason you would not be able to enjoy eternal happiness is God's reason also.

It's not that God is feeling along the same lines as you, but God is feeling your heart directly as His, your cry for the suffering He hears and He feels what you feel towards that situation. Your emotions in this are His.

I would also apply this to the annihilated, someone not suffering but eternally gone would also pull on God's heart and everyone who felt that loss of that soul would be God's feeling on it. So if i'm understanding you correctly, your position is that there is neither eternal torture or a cessation of existence, since that would conflict with eternal joy? Or I guess alternatively that those things do exist but eternal joy doesn't.

[Kobal2]

But if God did have a plan, why did he change it? And if he was going to change it, why did he wait several thousand years? There were millions of people living under the cloud of Original Sin and God knew he was going to repeal it. So why did he wait until 4 BC to manifest as Jesus? Why didn't Jesus appear in the Garden of Eden itself?

FWIW, I believe the idea that "God has a Plan" (which spans aeons and hasn't changed one iota since its inception) is specific to some Protestant denominations. AFAIK Catholics don't subscribe to this idea, they merely opine that whatever He's up to, we just don't (and can't) get it.

[Little Nemo]

FWIW, I believe the idea that "God has a Plan" (which spans aeons and hasn't changed one iota since its inception) is specific to some Protestant denominations. AFAIK Catholics don't subscribe to this idea, they merely opine that whatever He's up to, we just don't (and can't) get it.It's not so much "God has a plan" as "God has an opinion". If he thought Original Sin was a good idea, he would have kept it. If he thought Original Sin was a bad idea, he wouldn't have started it. But I can't see how God thought Original Sin was a bad idea but he was going to go ahead and do it anyway for a few thousand years before stopping.

As for the idea that we can't understand God, I have no argument with that. As I've indicated, my impression of what God would be if he existed is a being beyond human comprehension. But if you accept the idea that God is incomprehensible, then what's the point of religion at all? It's all based on the premise that we can understand what God wants. If you make the argument that God is beyond our ability to understand then there's no point in religion - what God actually wants may be the exact opposite of what we think he wants. For all we know, he just wants to be left alone and human faith is annoying him.