Why do atheists care about hell?

Yes, context is so hard to find when in a specific sub-forum.

 

Thus my reasoning for asking for the definitions of particular words. When the user of that word puts in writing the definition he/she is using, then the context is established with certainty and that user cannot later submit that others are taking or using his words out of context.

 

Hell is quite an interesting concept with imagery which lends itself to challenge the respective religion with.
Not least because it's frequently used to threaten non-believers, just read back in this forum to see how seriously and literally some believers approach the subject.

 

Most of us English speakers here use common words in the sense found in the popular dictionaries you refer to.

If you have difficulties in understanding, I suggest you utilise these resources. This certainly helped me tremendously when I was learning English, I am sure it would be very helpful for you as well.

 

How true. On the other hand, many of those words have varying definitions which can alter the context of how they are used. Therefore, asking for the specific definition a person is using, is only clarifying the context. No harm in that.

If I have difficulties? That is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard you say. You have to remember, that many folk on this forum hold a harsh opinion of my frequent use of those dictionaries. Of course, I understand their position also. Such use that I employ requires them to own up to what they are saying and sometimes their choice words will bite them in the rear. So you had to learn English. Interesting. I have been speaking and writing English for a period of time probably in excess of the years in which you have been speaking English. Let me see. I started speaking English when I was about 2 years old, then at approximately 6 years of age I started writing in English. I am now 63... so you do the math. BTW... my use of the English language allowed me to walk a dog on the state of Florida in a federal lawsuit. I do believe that I have a good grasp on the official language of this country.

 

This is false. I've never faced any real adversity in life and yet I'm a very happy person all of the time and I appreciate that very much. In fact I have a "Prime Directive" in life (based upon the Star Trek series) and that is happiness. The ultimate factor in all I do is really related to whether I will be happier for it. Caring about others, for example, makes me happy so I care about others and do much for them.

No, a person does not require adversity to truly appreciate happiness. That is a myth created by some that haven't learned how to be happy on their own. They seek an external excuse to be happy as opposed to happiness for it's own sake.

 

you’re talking about it so it must exist isn’t that would you would say?

 

So how do you know you prefer to care about people than not? You must have experienced spots wherein you did not, eh? And that contrast gave you a basis upon which to make decision. You appreciate it more having experienced the contrast, no?

Take war for instance, it doesn't take going to one to know that they are bad. But, having experienced them up close and personal, I appreciate the freedoms ... and responsibilities of this country ... far more than I did, even though I had a knowledge that war was bad before partaking in them. That contrast and its appreciation are what is referenced, and denying that contrast is needed, or even valued, in the learning process is a myth.

Funny thing? It exactly what the good book predicted thousands of years before you decided that caring about people was better than not ... what a shock to find that your experience confirms the good consequences of the behavior that God says it would? That the standards he lays out for us are indeed actually the best .. and we are free to choose to follow a different path and experience those consequences as well.

And in doing so we know. It is indeed better to care and be cared about then it is not too. What a shock, eh?

 

What's so shocking about an atheist enjoying to care about others?

Oh, and there was no judgment call about it 'being better', but being a pursuit of happiness for that person.
Is caring for others really something which can be prescribed and commanded?

 

Many of my friends are Atheists and none of them believe in hell. Doesn't make much sense if you don't believe in God but believe in Hell and Satan. I really think that people who believe in Hell but not in God are on the way of becoming Atheists, but are not fully there yet... Give'em time, they'll figure it out eventually...

 

Not exactly. I would have at least checked my grammar and made sure that it was correct. If I still made an error in grammar, I would at least attempt to edit the post to make a correction.

 

ya that sounds more like you

 

Laziness on your part makes it appear that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

it makes for an excuse to believe that at least

 

The concept of hell is a bane to all. The concept that you can work your hardest, try your best, die for your beliefs, get killed in a genocide and go to hell. To trump it, the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who murdered you asked for forgiveness prior to his/her execution and is in heaven.
Irrational. Immoral. Evil.

 

The bit about Christianity's coercion is self-evident. Remove head from sphincter and enjoy the sensation.

As for the psychological damage inflicted on people growing up with these "teachings" held over them, one case I recall was a woman interviewed by Dr. Richard Dawkins in one of his films - probably either Root of All Evil? or The Enemies of Reason. Of course, it's also self-evident if you've been raised with it or know someone personally who was, and chances are that you were and/or have, respectively.

 

Which just happens to explain why you can't seem to get it right. Must be be because you are so educated about it?

Either that or you are simply a deliberate schister? Something like that anyway.

All things being equal though, what do you call it when someone claims to be an expert on something and can't even get the basics right?

 

Because the person threatening believes it.

It's like a 10 year old threatening to beat me up. Just because he can't back up his threats doesn't make him less of a prick for trying.

Someone smugly telling me I'm going to hell doesn't make me fear for my future, it just makes that person look like an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Irony is such a wondrous thing...

 

The irony is that a non-theist such as you would even be considering the existence of such a place as hell.

 

Isaiah really had a way with words, especially when he got on the subject of hell.

Isaiah 57:3-10 (MSG) = But you, children of a witch, come here! Sons of a slut, daughters of a whore. What business do you have taunting, sneering, and sticking out your tongue? Do you have any idea what wretches you’ve turned out to be? A race of rebels, a generation of liars. You satisfy your lust any place you find some shade and fornicate at whim. You kill your children at any convenient spot— any cave or crevasse will do. You take stones from the creek and set up your sex-and-religion shrines. You’ve chosen your fate. Your worship will be your doom. You’ve climbed a high mountain to practice your foul sex-and-death religion. Behind closed doors you assemble your precious gods and goddesses. Deserting me, you’ve gone all out, stripped down and made your bed your place of worship. You’ve climbed into bed with the ‘sacred’ whores and loved every minute of it, adoring every curve of their naked bodies. You anoint your king-god with ointments and lavish perfumes on yourselves. You send scouts to search out the latest in religion, send them all the way to hell and back. You wear yourselves out trying the new and the different, and never see what a waste it all is. You’ve always found strength for the latest fad, never got tired of trying new religions.

Jesus knew how to turn a phrase as well.

Matthew 23:15 (NKJV) = “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

The sons of hell. What a phrase. And they go to hell and back. That sounds sort of exciting, doesn't it?

 

I don't care about the idea of Hell except for when it's used as a scare tactic on impressionable children. I've never met an atheist who did.

Most of us have our own sort of "moral code" based on empathy, and see the idea of Hell as silly and irrelevant to how we act.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” ― Marcus Aurelius

 

Are you here suggesting that non-theists do in fact have a 'moral code'? Are you implying that the agenda of the non-theists is to force that 'moral code' down the throats of others who may not be interested in that moral code?

 

Maybe I need to look up the definition of moral code because the way I define moral code is just doing what you think is right.

No, that's not what I was implying.

For instance my "moral code" tells me that stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. Abusing animals is wrong. I have a thinking process to go behind why I think these things are wrong though. Like I said though, mostly based on empathy.

 

Private definitions amount to nothing more than private opinions and as such are worthless in these discussions other than to express your own private bias or prejudice on a particular subject. The private opinion of one person is no greater in importance than the private opinion of another person. Socially acceptable definitions on the other hand, have been published in dictionaries and accepted by the mainstream public as 'acceptable'.

So, with the non-theists having their 'own sort of moral code', and they are acting upon that 'moral code' when engaging in these discussions, they are in fact doing the same thing that theists are doing; promoting the usage of that particular moral code. Non-theists complain about theists 'cramming religion' down their throats, is there a double standard being established?