Why torturing people for eternity is wrong

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Evolution has facilitated your ability to sin, not to mention intellectualize a divine being to sin against.

Evolution doesn't care about truth. It only goes to enhance survival.

If a mouse runs from a cat because it does not want to be eaten, it passes on useful genes to the new generation. And they have that survival technique.

If however the mouse runs from a cat because it thinks the cat is playing a fun game, the same result enhances the survivability of its offspring.

What is TRUE about the cat doesn't matter. Only what behavior serves to cause the organism to survive.

How can you trust a brain that has evolved in that way to know anything about what is actually the truth in the universe ?

The probability that such a brain evolved in that way knows about ultimate truth is very low.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

YouTube : =EvoArgumentAgainstNaturalism

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your existence is problematic for Christians.

As a lifelong atheist, my own 'rejection' of God can be easily dismissed as one of ignorance, resentment etc. You, however, have 'known' their God and still walked away. The easiest/laziest response therefore is to deny you were ever a Christian.

It's very disappointing.

I feel no bitterness or resentment about my experience of being a Christian.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have called me a liar for saying I used to be a Christian. KellyJay has called me a liar for saying I used to be a Christian. dj2becker has called me a liar for saying I used to be a Christian. robbie carrobie frequently called me a liar for saying I used to be a Christian. Eladar has called me a liar for saying I used to be a Christian. josephw has called ...[text shortened]... r for saying I used to be a Christian - in some cases over and over again - then I'm OK with it.

Much more important than that is I designate you a liar in saying God does not exist - Atheism.

Of course I realize that you somewhat dodge that charge by inventing a new term of agnostic atheist. But I consider an "agnostic atheist" mainly to be an atheist who has come to realize that his arguments for there being no God are not all that strong logically.

That is more important to point out that untruth than your alleged past theism, I think.

By the way. You imply strongly that I am lying to say Christ is Lord, Savior and the Son of God.

The charge of being a liar therefore is pretty mutual then isn't it?

Originally posted by @sonship
Much more important than that is I designate you a liar in saying God does not exist - Atheism.

I have never said that "God does not exist". You're making stuff up again.

Originally posted by @sonship
Of course I realize that you somewhat dodge that charge by inventing a new term of agnostic atheist.

I did not invent the term "agnostic atheist" and it's not "new". You are simply making stuff up, sonship.

Originally posted by @sonship
That is more important to point out that untruth than your alleged past theism, I think.

I was a Christian for about 28 years.

Originally posted by @sonship
You imply strongly that I am lying to say Christ is Lord, Savior and the Son of God.

I think you are telling the honest truth about your beliefs. I have never questioned your sincerity of belief.

Originally posted by @sonship
The charge of being a liar therefore is pretty mutual then isn't it?

I haven't "charged [you] of being a liar" about your beliefs about supernatural things. You're just making these things up.

Originally posted by @fmf
I haven't "charged [you] of being a liar" about your beliefs about supernatural things. You're just making these things up.

I used the phrase "strongly imply" and "charged".

If you deny "charged [you]" as arguable, "strongly imply" will do fine to point out the same thing.

Actually even a cursory remembrance of your descriptions of my beliefs have amounted to a charge of being a long list of pejoratives which you seem to relish to craft eloquently together.

Gaslighting is what they call denial that something never happened.

Liar? Perish the thought that you'd ever say that. You would be much more civil and respectful and put it this way:

And yet it's you, sonship, and not me, who seems to be beating his holy hairy chest here and exhorting people to follow your sanctimonious lead as you flap your ruffled feathers.

Much more dignified arguing ... huh?

And every time you make the comment about my "god figure" you are actually saying that my conveying the teaching of the Bible is my lying.

So don't further LIE with you gaslighting technique of feigned innocence . "Oh you are just making things up."

Originally posted by @sonship
I used the phrase "strongly imply" and "charged".

I have never implied ~ strongly or otherwise ~ that you are a liar about your beliefs. You're just making stuff up post after post. Show some dignity, sonship.

Originally posted by @sonship
Liar? Perish the thought that you'd ever say that. You would be much more civil and respectful and put it this way:

I've never thought you were a liar when talking about your beliefs. I have never said it. I have never posted it. I have never insinuated it. I have never implied it. I have never made the accusation in any shape or form. I do not think you are a liar. You're just inventing this.

Originally posted by @sonship
And every time you make the comment about my "god figure" you are actually saying that my conveying the teaching of the Bible is my lying.

When I am talking about your Christian "god figure" - as opposed to those of Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others - I am talking about your ideology. I am not calling you a liar. I do not think you lie about your beliefs. You are fabricating all this.

Originally posted by @sonship
So don't further LIE with you gaslighting technique of feigned innocence . "Oh you are just making things up."

You are just making things up, sonship. Do you have a video clip about the way you are behaving?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Evolution has facilitated your ability to sin, not to mention intellectualize a divine being to sin against.

There is nothing within evolution that promotes sin at all. Physical changes in bodies in a
material world does not facilitate changes which are sinful, if evolution were the driving
force all changes would just be part of the process of moving from life into something
else. How do you get sin when changes in evolution are just a natural part of the
process? Life would always just simply do what life does, no break from a single source
of all things in that.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
There is nothing within evolution that promotes sin at all. Physical changes in bodies in a
material world does not facilitate changes which are sinful, if evolution were the driving
force all changes would just be part of the process of moving from life into something
else. How do you get sin when changes in evolution are just a natural part of the
pr ...[text shortened]... ould always just simply do what life does, no break from a single source
of all things in that.

You miss my point Kelly.

Without evolution you simply wouldn't be here to sin in the first place. Even this conversation owes everything to us both having evolved into rational human beings. (See how I politely used 'us both' ).

Evolution enables rational thought, and rational thought enables the invention of a divine being for you to sin against.