@philokalia saidI am not sure why you typed all this. Was it for me?
There are elements that are entirely subjective, sure.
But it is possible for the argument to be entirely divorced from subjective experience and to rely solely on appeals to reason. But here we hit another quandary because reason itself is actually quite highly subjective. Even though it involves publicly verifiable lines of thought, it is very dependent upon each per ...[text shortened]... why some atheists use hell as a means of criticizing Christianity further or at least analyzing it.
The post you were responding to was:
Your speculation about supernatural things is firmly in realm of subjectivity, as are your judgments and perceptions. There's nothing "objective" about your beliefs regarding the desires and actions you attribute to some magical being or other.
-Removed-I do not see a question. But I presume the question is:
Are people burnt alive for eternity?
The answer would be yes, that is how it is described. It is described as an eternal punishment and it is likened to a lake of fire in revelations and it is said to be the fire that can never be quenched in Mark 9.
As to how literal the fire is, I do not know.
@fmf saidDo you think that appeals to reason are subjective?
I am not sure why you typed all this. Was it for me?
The post you were responding to was:
Your speculation about supernatural things is firmly in realm of subjectivity, as are your judgments and perceptions. There's nothing "objective" about your beliefs regarding the desires and actions you attribute to some magical being or other.
@philokalia saidIf your "appeals" are rooted in speculation about magical things, and your moral assertions are based on "It is because it is"-type "truths" and notions attributed to supernatural beings, then whatever stuff you come up with is entirely subjective. Do you actually see your defence of the torturer god ideology as an 'appeal to reason'?
Do you think that appeals to reason are subjective?
@fmf said
If your "appeals" are rooted in speculation about magical things, and your moral assertions are based on "It is because it is"-type "truths" and notions attributed to supernatural beings, then whatever stuff you come up with is entirely subjective. Do you actually see your defence of the torturer god ideology as an 'appeal to reason'?
If your "appeals" are rooted in speculation about magical things, and your moral assertions are based on "It is because it is"-type "truths" and notions attributed to supernatural beings, then whatever stuff you come up with is entirely subjective.
Oh, OK. I think a lot of apologetics employs rationale appeals to the existence of God, and then theology moves into the realm of philosophizing within the context of what is believed to be God's revealed truth.
So there's a domain where pure philosophy and pure reason occurs, then there is the domain of theology.
The two must be separated for a reasonable conversation to take place.
Do you actually see your defence of the torturer god ideology as an 'appeal to reason'?
So far, I've only just made some statements that are within the context of Christian theology to another self-identified Christian about the concept of hell.
No big reasoning was necessary, and all reasoning that is going to occur is in the context of theology, which operates off of given premises that are common between Christians.
If you were to join, though, you could say "given X, Y, and Z, here is my thought, and how it is relevant to Christianity," and then we'd interact with it.
But if your only plan is to say "God doesn't exist, this is unproven," then that is just an entirely different dsicussion, right. We go back to Square One and we have no business discussing things on Square 85.
@philokalia saidSo, I'll try again. Do you actually see your defence of the torturer god ideology as an 'appeal to reason'?
So far, I've only just made some statements that are within the context of Christian theology to another self-identified Christian about the concept of hell.
No big reasoning was necessary, and all reasoning that is going to occur is in the context of theology, which operates off of given premises that are common between Christians.
If you were to join, though, you c ...[text shortened]... dsicussion, right. We go back to Square One and we have no business discussing things on Square 85.
@philokalia saidI have never once said on this forum, in 12 or more years, "God doesn't exist", as I have said to you before maybe half a dozen times. It's odd that you would characterize that as my "only plan" in the circumstances.
But if your only plan is to say "God doesn't exist, this is unproven," then that is just an entirely different dsicussion, right.
@philokalia saidThe degree of traction that "It is because it is"-type moral 'arguments' have when people assert them to other people who already agree with them ~ within whatever communal feedback loop their religious beliefs trap them in ~ is neither here nor there when you are talking to people outside your religion.
So far, I've only just made some statements that are within the context of Christian theology to another self-identified Christian about the concept of hell.
@fmf saidI see my contributions to this discussion on hell is one that involves Christian theology, and that within Christian theology, there is reason.
So, I'll try again. Do you actually see your defence of the torturer god ideology as an 'appeal to reason'?
@fmf saidOK, I'll definitely let you define your beliefs however you want them to. ^^
I have never once said on this forum, in 12 or more years, "God doesn't exist", as I have said to you before maybe half a dozen times. It's odd that you would characterize that as my "only plan" in the circumstances.
But is it true that you deny the existence of our Christian God, and you do not support the claims of the existence of any other God?
Shorthand for that is usually just saying "God doesn't exist," but let me know what shorthand you would prefer and I'll try to remember it.