It is an exercise in religion-bashing, and the seeking of self-satisfaction that' us atheists are far more humane than those beastly Christians and Muslims could ever be'. So I don't think I'll play along. — Wayfarer

That's too bad. Maybe you could help. Many of us have quite traumatic experiences with Abrahamic religions. Recovering from religious abuse is still a taboo in Western culture. And you're helping to perpetrate it, helping the hardened atheist materialists become even more so.

Of course nearly everyone here will then join the pile on. It is an exercise in religion-bashing, and the seeking of self-satisfaction that 'us atheists are far more humane than those beastly Christians and Muslims could ever be'. So I don't think I'll play along. — Wayfarer

I hope that's not where I'm coming from. I should add that I have several friends - and have known many more - who started as Christians but in thinking through issues such as these, left the church to be deists or atheists. It's also the case that many progressive Christians I've read and met would agree with @Banno and express grave concern over the hideous barbarism and nasty judgement of so much religious writing and practice. Where they differ is they just see it as metaphor that is wrongly interpreted.

grave concern over the hideous barbarism and nasty judgement of so much religious writing and practice. — Tom Storm

On the other hand, if we subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, we must subscribe to Social Darwinism.
And fire-and-brimstone religion is Social Darwinism.

Those who rejoice at the thought of seeing others suffer in hell for eternity while they themselves are happy in heaven everafter can always say to you, "See, this is survival of the fittest."

Perhaps we might agree that the presumption of virtue ont he part of the religious is... questionable?

many progressive Christians — Tom Storm

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings.

Perhaps we might agree that the presumption of virtue ont he part of the religious is... questionable? — Banno

Or perhaps question _our_ ideas of virtue?

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence.

Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship.

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem? — Banno

Ya, I agree with you, this kind of thinking is really weird. I don't know how any person with an ounce of moral aptitude could possibly think that this kind of God could be loving or just. Moreover, how could this God create anyone knowing full well that they would make choices that lead to torture or their destruction?

I'll tell you something else that seems weird to me, and I was talking to a friend about this the other day. Even if you assume there is a God with some of the Christian attributes, omniscience, omnipotence, loving, for e.g., I couldn't imagine a being like this wanting people worshipping him/her, that seems like a human construction. When I think of how people worship God in church, it seems bizarre, raising their hands praising him, etc. What kind of God would want people doing this? The idea seems to come from our understanding of Kings, viz., how a king might want his subjects to respond, but this seems like an ego trip, not worthy of a God.

I spent 35 years of my life thinking like this, and it wasn't until I was willing to examine my beliefs more closely, that I removed myself from this kind of thinking. It's like being in a cult, you don't really see what's happening until you remove yourself from it. However, to be fair, this happens in other kinds of ideologies, including politics. This has driven me to think more carefully about what I believe, but even so, we're all susceptible to varying degree of weird thinking.

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings. — baker

On interpretations like anyone else.

The father was good because he had his children baptised?

Leaving that aside, is your point that good catholics, the pope included, do not actually believe the doctrine they espouse? That would indeed be a good thing. Would that they did not then feel obligated to pretend that they do, when dealing with events in the world.

That's why we are here.

Cheers. Threads such as this point to that very weirdness, pushing folk to look at it again. It's in tune with the rejection of doctrinarian philosophy Wittgenstein advocated, but more for children than the stuff we usually play with.

I admit being galled by what I've called the presumption of moral rectitude that one sometimes encounters in believers, most especially when they espouse banning abortion, isolating queer or trans teenagers and so on - when their actions are to the detriment of others.

if we subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, we must subscribe to Social Darwinism. — baker

Why? Looks plain wrong to me. "Survival of the fittest" is not what evolution is about.

Cheers.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Cite? — tim wood

This: Divine Evil

The argument is extensive.

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence. — Banno

That’s just your mortal judgment. You can’t begin to conceive how God judges stuff.

That’s just your mortal judgment. You can’t begin to conceive how God judges stuff. — praxis

Sure it is. You are right. We are all obliged to judge using what we have at hand. And what we have at hand indicates that god is evil. Despite this, there are those who chose to worship him.

So the question is, what are we to make of their judgment? They choose to believe, not in the light of the evidence, but in the face of the evidence. They admire the worst conceivable torturer.

Such folk are ripe for manipulation.

I'm not sure Christians say or believe any of this. Cite? (Lots of people who call themselves Christians do say this, but they're not Christians.) — tim wood

Many Christians believe this Tim, and they infer it from verses like 2 Thess. 1: 8,9 "...in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction [my emphasis], away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"

However you interpret this, it's not a pretty picture. In flaming fire is not something I want to be associated with, figuratively or not.

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem? — Banno

I think we should judge other’s moral character based on the totality of their actions. Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant. Even if we take things a step further and say that this belief causes them to ridicule, belittle, etc. atheists, that alone isn’t enough evidence to judge their moral character. Perhaps they also believe in giving to the poor, forgiving others their trespasses, etc. Are we to exclude these other, more noble, moral beliefs when we judge them?

Or perhaps question _our_ ideas of virtue? — baker

What do you find questionable about the common ideas of virtue?

And what we have at hand indicates that god is evil. — Banno

The gnostics beleived that the 'god' (actually a minor arrogant and deluded demiurge who imagined himself omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent) who created this imperfect world was himself flawed through and through. They called him "Yaldabaoth" if my memory serves.

I've been going on about the topic of "worthy of worship" since the '80s at least. Anyway, I hadn't realized David Lewis wrote on this either.

'God loves you; but you will burn in hell for atheism.' Anyone advocating such a Mafia-boss, protection racket style of deity is complicit in perpetuating a cycle of cruelty and abuse. — Tom Storm

Exactly. :up:

Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant. — Pinprick

Indeed, with this i will pretty much agree.

But I would make the observation that this is incompatible with the Christian view that one must hold to specific beliefs to be saved.

I hadn't realized David Lewis wrote on this either. — 180 Proof

On investigating, there are a few such articles written not long before his death. I'm enjoying his humorous style.

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem?

If you made the acquaintance of someone who thought highly of a person who tortured dogs as a hobby, would you befriend them? Ought you associate with them? — Banno

Let's take as an illustration two notable christian philosophers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine:

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell. — Aquinas

In that day true and full happiness shall be the lot of none but the good, while deserved and supreme misery shall be the portion of the wicked, and of them only. — Augustine

Is there a way to persuade someone who, like them, sees nothing wrong about eternal damnation? I doubt it, here their faith in God's goodness in the long run despite working in “mysterious ways” seems to be at the core of their belief, combined with how much importance they attach to the sufferings of others. Or else they are wholly indifferent to the suffering of the people they regard as wicked, which is also not something that can be changed by way of arguments.

As for whether I'd associate with Aquinas or Augustine, I think I still would, because it'd be a shame to lose the privilege to get more insight into such interesting subjects as Aquinas' interpretation of the philosophy of Aristotle or into Augustine's theory of time, or their more recent philosophical ideas.

Knowing their views on hell, I'd try to avoid that subject as much as possible, and just leave if they insisted on talking about it.

I don't think one should judge a person based solely on one contemptible view that they have about a certain subject, since they may have other redeemable views or qualities. Augustine, for example, was opposed to judicial torture, which I think is morally quite lofty.

If those beliefs they hold had some important consequences in the sense of making them act in a wicked fashion in their day to day life, then it's probably better not to associate with them, depending on how strong that effect is.

If the person who sees nothing wrong about hell has no redeemable qualities, then I think it's best not to associate with them.

I think we should judge other’s moral character based on the totality of their actions. Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant. Even if we take things a step further and say that this belief causes them to ridicule, belittle, etc. atheists, that alone isn’t enough evidence to judge their moral character. Perhaps they also believe in giving to the poor, forgiving others their trespasses, etc. Are we to exclude these other, more noble, moral beliefs when we judge them? — Pinprick

Well, it's debatable whether having a belief can cause harm. Having any belief is assenting to something, so it's a kind of action. It may not be overt, but it requires a willful mental act on one's part. And, if you take things a bit further, as you say, and include ridicule and belittling, that to me does say something about someone's moral character. However, all of us have flawed moral characters, so it goes for all of us. And yes, when judging someone's character, one should look at the totality of their character. We all know people who generally have good characters, but are flawed in this or that way.

My understanding of the basic theology is that humans were born into sin as the result of violating God's command in the Garden of Eden, so God, through his infinite grace, sacrificed his only son to save mankind from the consequences of that sin, with the only requirement for that salvation being faith.

Heaven therefore is fairly easily obtained and hell the consequence of sin, not the consequence of lack of faith. Salvation is the gift, the solution to The Fall, obtainable through faith.

I don't hold to this theology, so I won't defend it, but the responses to theodicy questions are involved theological discussions, which would require delving into the various positions taken by the various Christian denominations.

Do you really want to, for example, learn of the Mormon response to this and debate its consistenty and coherence? Would that be at all interesting to you?

I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. Some religions largely reject the literalism you find so repugnant, denying the literal eternal damnation you attack.

That is, if your atheism is the result of the evil you find in the God you describe in the OP, you might be better served to find a more suitable religion for you. It's not as if religion must rely upon the sort of God you describe.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The point is that people can easily interpret this or that verse, in this or that way. But there are plenty of verses in the Bible that indicate, at the very least, there is separation from God for the unbeliever. I spent years studying the Bible, and memorizing large portions of the Bible, but I'd be hard put to recall much of it. There are a lot of references to hell in the Bible, and those references go to the unbeliever.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.