The Good Father

@philokalia said
I can't be bothered remembering the details of your version, FMF; I am not a full time poster here and I chat with other people quite like you all the time in other places and in real life.

OK, so be it. Thanks.

@philokalia said
I cannot be expected to be aware of the nuances and details of your views, especially as time slips by and I am quite engaged in other places.

Understood.

@philokalia said
If you are going to take credit for looking past Christianity, dismissing it, talking about it as foolish, unbelievable, contradictory, etc., surely, you can accept the consequences of what it would mean that you've denied God?

What "consequences"?

Something that appeals to your imagination, but that you cannot demonstrate exists, has "consequences" for me?

Are you really no longer able to perceive how far fetched your assertion sounds?

@philokalia said
I think if people are bold enough to be sure & certain God does not exist and thoroughly & actively reject him, as conscious and intelligent people... They are the authors of their own choice and the Captains of their soul, are they not?

Why don't you ask them?

@philokalia said
I also seem to recollect that a couple years ago or so you were open to the idea that there really may be a God, and you thought that you were flirting with deism..?

I do not reject the idea that there may be some sort of creator entity or being. The "Deism" thread was a thought excercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass.

@fmf said
I'd describe myself as an agnostic atheist or implicit atheist. Ghost of a Duke would be an explicit atheist.

For other users who cannot rely on comparing the atheisms of FMF & Ghost of Duke to understand a concept:

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism.[1] In George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

@fmf said
What "consequences"?

Something that appeals to your imagination, but that you cannot demonstrate exists, has "consequences" for me?

Are you really no longer able to perceive how far fetched your assertion sounds?

This is completely ignoring the point by changing the topic slightly.

We both know we are talking about the morality of hell, which is the basis of the OP, but you are sidestepping the issue by turning it into how you do not believe that hell is a valid concept , thus making my question irrelevant.

You are literally avoiding the central question of the OP in your own post. 🙄

@fmf said
I do not reject the idea that there may be some sort of creator entity or being. The "Deism" thread was a thought excercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass.

Wait, you made a thread suggesting you are maybe a deist in order to counter what you thought was an argument that was coming out (or had already come out)?

@philokalia said
This is completely ignoring the point by changing the topic slightly.

We both know we are talking about the morality of hell, which is the basis of the OP, but you are sidestepping the issue by turning it into how you do not believe that hell is a valid concept , thus making my question irrelevant.

You are literally avoiding the central question of the OP in your own post. 🙄

The supernatural "consequences" you believe exist for me for not sharing your religious beliefs are morally incoherent.

The stuff you say about "free will" doesn't make any sense [the "choice" you think there is is something in your imagination...

...it's a kind of Piss On My Back, Tell Me Its Raining, And Offer Me An Imaginary Umbrella circular-logic-esque rhetorical device].

Compounding it all, you have no credible evidence that this mechanism of neverending torture even exists.

@philokalia said
Wait, you made a thread suggesting you are maybe a deist in order to counter what you thought was an argument that was coming out (or had already come out)?

Why the question? Just read what the post you are ostensibly replying to says.

@fmf said
The supernatural "consequences" you believe exist for me for not sharing your religious beliefs are morally incoherent.

The stuff you say about "free will" doesn't make any sense [the "choice" you think there is is something in your imagination...

...it's a kind of Piss On My Back, Tell Me Its Raining, And Offer Me An Imaginary Umbrella circular-logic-esque rhetorical dev ...[text shortened]... unding it all, you have no credible evidence that this mechanism of neverending torture even exists.

... So is this a thread about proving the reality of hell, or is it about the ethics of hell?

Whenever you cannot adequately make your moral argument, it becomes the former.

@fmf said
Why the question? Just read what the post you are ostensibly replying to says.

I do not remember enough about the context to make a further assertion about it and it seems doubtful that you will illumine us furhter as to what it was.

@philokalia said
... So is this a thread about proving the reality of hell, or is it about the ethics of hell? Whenever you cannot adequately make your moral argument, it becomes the former.

The moral incoherence of the torturer God ideology renders it not credible. It is you who is not "adequately" digesting my posts and then waffling around the edges. Coherence and credibility are intertwined.

@philokalia said
I do not remember enough about the context to make a further assertion about it and it seems doubtful that you will illumine us furhter as to what it was.

You remind me of dj2becker who, despite talking to almost no one else here, would constantly insist that he could not remember anything we had talked about. Here is my stance: I do not reject the idea that there may be some sort of creator entity or being. The "Deism" thread was a thought exercise about ticking the Where We Came From box and so heading off the breathless 'we were created so the whole concept of Substitutionary Atonement must be true' "argument" at the pass.

@fmf said
The moral incoherence of the torturer God ideology renders it not credible. It is you who is not "adequately" digesting my posts and then waffling around the edges. Coherence and credibility are intertwined.

Well, you haven't shown that here.

You have not adequately talked about free will and our own choices; you just gave us the very strained original post about what constitutes a 'good father,' and then when pressed on it, you attacked from an entirely different angle:

hell isn't real!

Not a good look.