Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 3 of 3

Hereinafter we will conclude considering the, now in stasis, discussion which took place between myself, the Midwest Atheist and a friend of his as we attempted to discuss atheism, Christianity and atheist talking points.

The friend wrote a follow up from that which was considered in the conclusion of the previous segment:

Let us imagine that someone considered the God of the Bible and based upon their personal moral preference decide that they want nothing to do with this God. Let us further imagine that this turns out to be the one true God. If this God, whom they despise, were to force them to spend infinity with Him this would amount to hell. Thus, God gives them a choice and they can choose to be away from God for all of infinity instead

For the sake of argument, Let's agree that separation from god for eternity will not be pleasant for me, whether I believe in him now or not, and that heaven is the better place to be than hell. Jesus himself talked about weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, etc. so I don't know how you can justifiably imply that Jesus would be doing me a favour by sending me to hell rather than hang out with him and his dad in heaven because I'm not a believer in this life.
If Jesus turns out to really be God and I am punished/tortured/separated from god for eternity because I didn't believe something which I didn't believe, then I judge this to be unfair/unjust/bad/immoral, (etc). That's the way I see it. If someone can convince me that there is a reason that I should see this as fair/just/good/moral, then I'm willing to look at the evidence for that argument.

Please attack my response if you will, and let's move to the next question that MWA asked:

In Christianity, belief is more important than action. Even though Christians love to say, "Faith without works is dead," they are forced to concede that no matter how terrible of a life a person leads, if they accept Jesus as their lord and savior and repent of their sins on their death bed, they get their golden ticket into heaven, all is forgiven. That is, unless they blaspheme the holy spirit. Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and you're fine.

Is this a fair representation of christian doctrine? Can you see why this presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good?

Can we please proceed under the assumption that some of these non-believers, like myself, have not "chosen" to not believe?

Besides engaging in other shenanigans which are best ignored the Midwest Atheist had a rare moment of “clarity” and wrote:

I used to believe. I was told as soon as I could understand (3 or 4 years old) that God was real, hell was real and that I would be going there if I doubted it. The people telling me this were the people I trusted and loved. They told me about Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and many other strange things. As I grew up I became harder to convince and started to see through all the bull. They caved like a house of cards on every make believe being that they had lied to me about, except one. Because they believed. Why because no body told them, when they were 3 or 4 years old that, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy were going to torture them for all eternity for not believing.
I no longer believe but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I've come to realize that it was all a lie and I still live with the effects of my early childhood conditioning.

About this, the friend commented, “Ditto, man. Well put.”

Well, the discussion came to an end here as for whatever reason the Midwest Atheist ceased allowing my comments to be posted:

Thank against for the discourse.

I wrote a response but later realized that you had posted two in a row. I posted one but maybe the admin [the Midwest Atheist] has not gotten around to it yet, he can always just delete it as I will post it now. Although, due to these two comments being rather lengthy, as per the comment section’s word count limitations, I will post them in three parts—maybe from here we can narrow our focus.

I am afraid that you are leaving too much undefined and assumed such as “immoral”—for what if, in your estimation, my views are immoral? What then? You condemn me as immoral and what then? You condemn based on your personal preferences because I do not adhere to your chosen personal preferences.
I think that in referring to Jesus “sending” you to hell misses the point about the fact that you are sending yourself by refusing to be forgiven.
Also, statements such as “punished/tortured/separated from god” are a category mistake as you are correlating things together which do not belong.
I have shown that hell is eternal because sin is eternal as it is chosen, nursed, cherished and kept.

I certainly do not care to defend emotive hypothetical scenarios such as the death bed scenario. If you understand Christianity to be promulgating the concept of sinning as much as possible and waiting for a death bed (assuming that such a person will have such a dead upon which to lay and repent) then you are dealing with atheist talking points and not interested in the Biblical concepts of grace and salvation.
This is not even the least bit realistic as it implies premeditative manipulation of grace—getting God on a loophole, as it where. That someone may repent on their death bed due to true sorrow for a wasted life, etc. is another matter altogether.
Grace is about love and relationship not about getting away with it, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1-2, “you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh” Galatians 5:13, etc.
Thank God salvation is not based on works because while I may feel quite well equipped facing judgment standing next to many people whom I have known I am afraid that I would not make it standing next to a Mother Theresa.

Now, I must take a moment to get in on the anecdotes and state that having been raised in a 100% secular home by an atheist and an agnostic I was never once told about God (and we did not have a Santa or Easter Bunny). When I found out that my country of origin’s equivalent of the tooth fairy was not real I became so very angry that I became an instant skeptic and have been one ever since.
But I was raised being told about mythological realms where the universe is the eternally uncaused first cause, where life came from non-life (without evidence) and various other secular myths. I no longer believe in the secular myths but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I have come to realize that it was all a lie and my wife, kids and myself have been treated very, very badly simply because we do not believe like the secularists anymore.

Yet, I note that correlating the concept of God with Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are also a category mistakes and display, for one, a deep lack of knowledge of that which we can infer about our creator from science and philosophy.

Back to the issue at hand; yes, I can see why your strange view Christian doctrine presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good (even if they base “good” upon personal preferences) because you are taking something beautiful and soiling it whilst misrepresenting the concept in the first place. Indeed, I have noticed time and time again that non-believers have a very hard time with doctrines which are not Judeo-Christian at all but are fallacious common misconceptions.

I mostly think that such issue as sin and hell are very, very difficult for non-believers because two of their consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability (in fact, your whole objection to hell is based on an attempt to avoid justice). Atheism simply lacks any concept of ultimate transcendent justice. On this view: atheism makes evil even worse by 1) not doing anything to ultimately stop it, by 2) not being able to redeem it, by 3) making it benefit the evil doer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and if they are not caught (assuming that enough other people agree that their deeds were “evil” and have a judicial system in place) they simply get away with it while their victim continues to suffer.
There is no justice: Mother Theresa ends up the same as Adolf Hitler—no accountability; simply do whatever you makes you most fit to survive (even if that is believing in hell—by the way).

Thus, in Christian theology there is redemption for the worse of us. Indeed, there is grace enough to forgive the most wretched. That some want to turn that into emotive references to “Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and you're fine” is indicative of the manner in which some choose to discuss otherwise serious and important issues.

If you have “not ‘chosen’ to not believe” were you predestined by the bio-chemical makeup of your brain to become an atheist? Is this how you seek to survive as the fittest? Or are we dealing with an argument from personal incredulity?

I must say that although you want to move on to point two we are not done with point one. My initial assertion was that atheist talking points were presented and we have not deal with the first one; we have dealt with your redefined watered down version of the first one. Yet, I was not contending with the future revision but with the original.
So back to #1: the assertion related to “torture” and this has nothing to do with “more liberal interpretations of hell” versus others since the issue is that, along with the assertion, one would have to present where the Bible details and describes “torture.” And I am not asking for a word which we can then proceed to fill by appealing to, for example, a lake of fire, etc. but am asking where torture is specified.
For instance, if you toss me into the mouth of an active volcano you have murdered me but have not tortured me. Thus, in order to affirm that it is torture we would have to invent explanations about the difference being that we are said to be eternal and thus, forever burning. But how can that be since something can only burn once? Well, God would remake your body to destroy it again or…whatever. But now we are merely inventing our very own theology-of-the-gaps.

You can seek to deny your personal responsibility of making conscience decisions but you have chosen to deny that the Holy Spirit exists. We always choose whether or not to believe something. You also seek to deny your personal responsibility that you chose to “commit those crimes” (in my terms).

Incidentally, what would you consider convincing evidence of God’s existence?
Also, if there is any such thing as a “Christian religion” then it is this “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

If not, then indeed, it is man-made and you condemn “religion,” I condemn “religion,” and we are millennia behind the Bible which condemns “religion” and thus, God who condemns “religion.”

If you are much like the average bear then you have wronged very many people; some whom you have surely forgotten, some whom you could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive you, some who have died, etc. Thus, if “the only person who can forgive me for any wrongdoing is the person I have wronged” then you will remain unforgiven. Also, I am not sure why seeking and getting forgiveness should be any sort of standard. You dogmatically assert that yours “is the only forgiveness that is moral or real in any sense.” Well, you have most certainly embarrassed the very concept of a God-free universe. “Who decides this? I do” you determine that which is right, wrong, good, evil, moral, immoral, true, false, etc. and then declare that yours in “the only” way.

I am not certain how you gained such authority but granting it: what if I disagree or violate your absolute standard?

But “Do I need an absolute basis?” Only if you want to be logically consistent. For example, without an absolute standard you 1) cannot condemn any past action since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and before your time, 2) cannot condemn any present action since your standard is not absolute and thus, does not apply to anyone outside of yourself and 3) you will not be able to condemn any future actions since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and after your time.

Now, in a God-free universe I am doing the same as you; inventing my own standards and if yours and mine ever clash we would see how survives as the fittest—and I have a five finger death punch up my sleeve :o)

I do not deny in the least bit that we humans can muse upon moral issues and come to epistemic conclusions, but we cannot provide any ontological premise. Without such a, ultimate/transcendent/absolute, premise I conclude that there is nothing to violate and so no one can be condemned of anything.

The point here is that technically “morality” is necessarily relative as it refer to the “mores” and “describes” what is, what it is that people are doing. While “ethics” refers to the “ethos” and “prescribes” that which people should and should not do.

I do understand that you premise your condemnations upon your personal preferences which are themselves premised upon your personal preferences which are, after all, bio-chemically induced. If my bio-chemical makeup differs from yours then my personal preferences will differ and we will end up back in the death match.

I think that it is a very good idea for “someone else to tell me what is moral or good.” For example, I tell my children as they are in need of my much more developed, via musing, revelation and life experience, advice. I would also highly prize such guidance from a much more experienced person such as a seasoned citizen (sounds like an item on a cannibal’s menu does it not?). I would most highly prize the guidance from a being who has eternally experienced relationship.

Well, there it is; we never even got past the first fallacy but uncovered quite a few new ones along the way.