The Good Father

@fmf said
If they do not find the claims made by people like you regarding "God" to be credible, then they cannot be "choosing to alienate themselves" from an entity they feel they have no reason to believe exists.

So there is no "moral" issue surrounding their lack of belief and their 'failure to share the religious beliefs you hold... beliefs, if you forgive me for saying so, that seem awfully weighed down with narcissism and misanthropy.

Right, I do not now what it means when someone rejects God because they do not believe it is credible.

Perhaps they lacked the capacity, and they will be judged differently.

It's a Luke 12 situation.

I know that our God does not endorse absurdities, so perhaps it is the case that they are not subject to damnation. But each of these situations will all be different, I think.

You are an intelligent person who understands the Christian position well, yes? Do you feel morally culpable if you reject God and it turns out that the Christian God is the actual God?

@philokalia said
OK, but we are talking about the moral coherence of the argument, not whether it is factually true.

Coherence and credibility are intertwined.

You do NOT appear to be talking about the moral coherence of your ideology.

You appear to be finding different ways to essentially say IT IS THE DOCTRINE AND THE DOCTRINE IS MORALLY COHERENT which is not much different to you saying essentially IT IS MORALLY COHERENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TO BE SO.

@fmf said
"Tortured in burning flames for eternity" - that exact string of six words, which I carefully use when I refer to your ideology - is taken verbatim from one of your posts about 18 months ago. It is your terminology.

I do not think I said that.

The idea is that, y es, there will be flames, and it is eternal, but torture is not a word that I see myself using, unless in reference to your descriptions of it.

I think I must have been discussing this with you back in the day when you used to bandy about the phrase "Torturer God theory" (lol).

Please, provide a citation, if you can.

@fmf said
Coherence and credibility are intertwined.

You do NOT appear to be talking about the moral coherence of your ideology.

You appear to be finding different ways to essentially say IT IS THE DOCTRINE AND THE DOCTRINE IS MORALLY COHERENT which is not much different to you saying essentially IT IS MORALLY COHERENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TO BE SO.

But it is morally coherent.

Like, we could argue that Marxism is morally coherent, even if you disagree with the particularities of the morality, or that Libertarianism is morally coherent, with the same caveats...

There aren't any internal contradictions.

But if you take out 'morally' and just think about it in terms of the implementation or some other asepcts, then, perhaps, we could call it incoherent.

At least, that is how I conceptualize t.

Sorry if there is a disagreement.

@philokalia said
Perhaps they lacked the capacity, and they will be judged differently.

The ins and outs of who think will and won't be tortured is neither here nor there. Stuff like this does not create any sophistication to the ideology. It just sounds like you're hedging because you are taking on water on the moral depravity of your beliefs.

@fmf said
The ins and outs of who think will and won't be tortured is neither here nor there. Stuff like this does not create any sophistication to the ideology. It just sounds like you're hedging because you are taking on water on the moral depravity of your beliefs.

LOL, how would it be irrelevant who is subjected to hell? How would it be irrelevant what the standard for punishment is?

That's quite an argument.

@philokalia said
I do not think I said that.

I have been quoting you verbatim, and even putting in quotation marks - because it's YOUR notion and not mine, for 18 months or more. I quoted it back at you several times in that conversation. And now you are pretending you did to read it or did not understand that they were your words?

@philokalia said
You are an intelligent person who understands the Christian position well, yes?

Yes, I understand the Christian positions on torture well. And this is why I think the moral coherence that you believe your ideology has is essentially convoluted circular logic.

@fmf said
I have been quoting you verbatim, and even putting in quotation marks - because it's YOUR notion and not mine, for 18 months or more. I quoted it back at you several times in that conversation. And now you are pretending you did to read it or did not understand that they were your words?

And we just have to take your word for it that you are

"quoting me verbatim"

from 18 months ago...

With an exact phrase.

Like a normal person does...

But no links, no proof, or anything, just a phrase you've kept memorized for the day taht this would come up 18 months later.

@fmf said
Yes, I understand the Christian positions on torture well. And this is why I think the moral coherence that you believe your ideology has is essentially convoluted circular logic.

Then make the argument.

@philokalia said
Do you feel morally culpable if you reject God and it turns out that the Christian God is the actual God?

Are you asking me if I feel "morally culpable" now for not sharing your religious beliefs? No of course not.

If your God figure only reveals himself to me after I die, and did not do so while I was alive, why would I be "morally culpable"?

And what would be the moral justification for your God figure to torture me for lacking belief while I was alive?

And what would be the moral justification for your God carrying it out in secret?

@philokalia said
Then make the argument.

You're trying to dj2becker me.

@philokalia said
I think I must have been discussing this with you back in the day when you used to bandy about the phrase "Torturer God theory".

I still think you subscribe to the torturer God ideology. I think your ludicrous 'atheists torture themselves' thing is a kind of mish-mash of sophistry, obfuscation, and intellectual masturbation.

@philokalia said
But it is morally coherent.

All you seem to be saying is that NON-BELIEVERS WILL BE TORTURED AND IT IS MORALLY COHERENT THAT THIS IS SO.

@fmf said
Are you asking me if I feel "morally culpable" now for not sharing your religious beliefs? No of course not.

If your God figure only reveals himself to me after I die, and did not do so while I was alive, why would I be "morally culpable"?

You must be very confident, then, that belief in God is completely irrational, or that you have some special barrier which exists between you and God, which completely prevents you from having contact with Him (though it is more accurate to simply say that you do not fear this at all because you do no think God is real).

But, it may be the case taht you are someone who has not truly sought a relationship with God, and were simultaneously unwilling to take on the burden of a Christian life...

While, surely, I can make none of these judgments, you have to acknowledge that there are people who

(1) may leave the religion 'in good faith' (having honestly attempted closeness to God and departing only after disappointment), and
(2) those who may leave the religion 'in bad faith' (having not truly & honestly attempted to approach God and have departed out of their carnal motivations, apathy, or laziness)

These are very different circumstances.

You would understand how they would also merit different treatment from God, yes?