This topic is locked from further discussion.
Well whether you're going to go to hell or not doesnt depend on whether or not you believe it exists.
Regardless, I doubt we can tell for sure what criteria God uses (if he exists) to judge who will go to heaven and who will go to hell (if those two exist).
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] would not the latter claim imply that all things for which we don't have evidence 'most likely do not exist', a claim which has been proven wrong in the past?
the claim 'hell does not exist' is one dependant on factual accuracy. so is 'there is no [non-relative] evidence in favour of the existence of hell', but 'so it most likely doesn't exist' is a claim based on reasoning and reasoning is entirely subjective i'm afraid.
foxhound_fox
[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] would not the latter claim imply that all things for which we don't have evidence 'most likely do not exist', a claim which has been proven wrong in the past?
the claim 'hell does not exist' is one dependant on factual accuracy. so is 'there is no [non-relative] evidence in favour of the existence of hell', but 'so it most likely doesn't exist' is a claim based on reasoning and reasoning is entirely subjective i'm afraid.
foxhound_fox
Of course without necessarily using the word "objective" as something superior to "subjective", ie the way they usually are used.
I was actually going to quote you and suggest to you that in stead of "objective" that you use "empirical" but then I thought that those two could as well be the same. :POf course without necessarily using the word "objective" as something superior to "subjective", ie the way they usually are used.
Teenaged
[QUOTE="testfactor888"] Doesn't really matter to me as I made my point quite clear. If you disagree with it again that doesn't matter to me. I am absolutely sure that there is no god, no heaven, no hell. For me the lack of proof of its existence is all the proof I need. I am someone who hates everything religious and anything to do with god so there is no way I would concede the idea that he exists even in the slightest probability. I am not trying to change opinions and I get what you are trying to say. For me though I feel absolute in my claim. As I said the lack of evidence of existence is all the evidence I need.
foxhound_fox
Doesn't really matter to me as I made my point quite clear. If you disagree with it again that doesn't matter to me. I am absolutely sure that there is no god, no heaven, no hell. For me the lack of proof of its existence is all the proof I need. I am someone who hates everything religious and anything to do with god so there is no way I would concede the idea that he exists even in the slightest probability. I am not trying to change opinions and I get what you are trying to say. For me though I feel absolute in my claim. As I said the lack of evidence of existence is all the evidence I need.[QUOTE="testfactor888"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
"Hell most assuredly does not exist." An absolute claim requiring proof.
"Hell most likely does not exist, given the lack of evidence in favour of its existence." A non-absolute claim not requiring evidence.
So far, I've only ever seen you trying to posit the former does not require evidence, not the latter.Wii4Fun
The Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Anyways, I still stand by my claim that the burden of proof lies on both sides and not just one one of them. Neither can really prove the other wrong. If you're going tell me that you know for sure there is no God for instance, you're going to have to give me some solid proof.
Why is it those who says God exist are the only ones who are required to have proof of it, but those who says he doesn't are not required to have any proof? That doesn't make any sense. You would need facts to back up your claim.
I am 100 percent sure there is no god but I am not trying to convince others. I have all the proof I need in the lack of evidence to their being one. Nothing you are saying changes what I feel is right for myself. I could go on but in the long run I will just start to insult anyone and everyone who believes in there being a god and I don't want to go past that line.
That's not what religion is about.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I was actually going to quote you and suggest to you that in stead of "objective" that you use "empirical" but then I thought that those two could as well be the same. :P
Of course without necessarily using the word "objective" as something superior to "subjective", ie the way they usually are used.
foxhound_fox
Anyway, really interesting points and I especially agree with your very last sentence.
Good ol' muslims..
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I was actually going to quote you and suggest to you that in stead of "objective" that you use "empirical" but then I thought that those two could as well be the same. :P
Of course without necessarily using the word "objective" as something superior to "subjective", ie the way they usually are used.
foxhound_fox
There are some things that all of us see through our own subjective apparati (sp?) that we all seem to see in the same manner. For instance, we all know that the sky is blue, the sun appears yellow, and the laws of gravity have always held true. It seems to me that for the most part what we hold as objectively true all come from things that can be objectively verifiable, i.e. the senses, which science also relies on via instruments that enhance the senses. On the other hand, emotions are not necessarily verifiable by others. One person says they saw Mary in a wood pattern and felt god, someone else looks at the wood, sees nothing, and feels nothing. There's a difference between what appears the same way to everyone and what is interpreted different ways by different people.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I was actually going to quote you and suggest to you that in stead of "objective" that you use "empirical" but then I thought that those two could as well be the same. :P
Of course without necessarily using the word "objective" as something superior to "subjective", ie the way they usually are used.
theone86
There are some things that all of us see through our own subjective apparati (sp?) that we all seem to see in the same manner. For instance, we all know that the sky is blue, the sun appears yellow, and the laws of gravity have always held true. It seems to me that for the most part what we hold as objectively true all come from things that can be objectively verifiable, i.e. the senses, which science also relies on via instruments that enhance the senses. On the other hand, emotions are not necessarily verifiable by others. One person says they saw Mary in a wood pattern and felt god, someone else looks at the wood, sees nothing, and feels nothing. There's a difference between what appears the same way to everyone and what is interpreted different ways by different people.
I think that when he was speaking about everything being in one sense subjective, he was referring to the fact that even when people see/hear etc something which we can all agree on being this way or that way (which would make ot objective), its still a personal experience for everyone (without of course that meaning that one will say that the sun is yellow and someone else will say that it is black).Now this at first seems like a rather obvious thing to say and pretty redundant but I think what is trying to be established is that objective truths dont eliminate personal "shades" in the perception of them by people 100%.
I hope I got what fox meant right.
There are some things that all of us see through our own subjective apparati (sp?) that we all seem to see in the same manner. For instance, we all know that the sky is blue, the sun appears yellow, and the laws of gravity have always held true. It seems to me that for the most part what we hold as objectively true all come from things that can be objectively verifiable, i.e. the senses, which science also relies on via instruments that enhance the senses. On the other hand, emotions are not necessarily verifiable by others. One person says they saw Mary in a wood pattern and felt god, someone else looks at the wood, sees nothing, and feels nothing. There's a difference between what appears the same way to everyone and what is interpreted different ways by different people.
theone86
I think that when he was speaking about everything being in one sense subjective, he was referring to the fact that even when people see/hear etc something which we can all agree on being this way or that way (which would make ot objective), its still a personal experience for everyone (without of course that meaning that one will say that the sun is yellow and someone else will say that it is black).Now this at first seems like a rather obvious thing to say and pretty redundant but I think what is trying to be established is that objective truths dont eliminate personal "shades" in the perception of them by people 100%.
I hope I got what fox meant right.
Teenaged
What? Christians believe that agnostics will go to hell, too.Good ol' muslims..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
Ah.You are. I am actually quite glad I can elucidate these things... >_>
And even though it might be redundant, it definitely is necessary, because for all we know, the entire material world could just be an illusion (i.e. the Matrix). It most likely isn't, but the way in which we perceive things suggests it is always a possibility, even if we never actually find out. Just studying the world outside our minds is giving us only half the picture... we also need to study how we view these things from the inside out, and how those processes of perception work.foxhound_fox
Personally, I dont care for the matrix theory even if there is a chance it is true because I dont find it constructive to consider and overall at the end of the day it isnt interesting to me.
For me, what you explained is interesting without it alluding to some other theory or leading to some other greater conclusion (but who knows perhaps subconsciously it does "trigger" some conclusion that I find interesting but have yet to word out - I cant think of anything now).
What? Christians believe that agnostics will go to hell, too. No, protestants believe agnostics will go to hell. Catholics, orthodox and some branches of Lutheran on the other hand don't assume to know the extent of God's mercy and judgement. We make the claim Christianity is the path to heaven and make it easier, but who are we to say someone who lives a good life but for some reason doesn't believe is automatically damned to hell.Good ol' muslims..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
You're already in hell, you just don't realise it, cursed to endure an eternity of tedious threads such as this one.
[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]
What I'd like to say to that person is "Remember Surah Al-Kafiroon (the disbelievers, atheists)?"
Harisemo
why?
O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment