Why don't Christians Kill their Children?

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

However, one overarching pattern seems to be emerging. Myself, and other Christian posters, have replied that of course we wouldn't kill our children because we recognise that would be a wrong thing to do.

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

I have, in the past, argued that atheists are not necessarily any more immoral than other people. But after reading this thread I don't think I can ever make that argument again. If what the majority of atheists have expressed in this thread really expresses their genuine views then I find it quite scary having to live in the same society with them.

Some of us avoid killing others because we genuinely believe that to be a wrong way for us to behave. I am shocked that so many of you refrain from killing your children only because you don't actually believe that there is a risk of something worse happening to them.

What about the risk that your children may develop inoperable cancer in the future? What about the risk that they may be kidnapped and tortured for days by a homicidal sadistic maniac? At one point do these risks become real enough to you to start living up to the morality you have expressed in this thread and so to start slaughtering your own kids to protect them from those risks?

The real laugh is that this thread, apparently intended to attack Christianity, has only served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of so many atheist posters.

The only way you could miss the point of the thread by so much is if that was your aim.

1) For an atheist, there is no logical path between killing a child and a positive impact on the well-being of the child (obviously!). But because of the concept of "life after death" the same cannot necessarily be said for religious believers. This thread was about examining the contradictions that "life after death" may entail.

2) Since Christians believe in life after death, and that the life after death can be either immeasurably better (heaven) or immeasurably worse (hell) than the current life on Earth, then there must be circumstances where dying is a good thing (i.e. leads to heaven, the "better place" that is always talked about at funerals)

3) Under what conditions can access to this better place be obtained? Do children go there automatically when they die?

4) If so, a child dying has moved automatically from the lesser place (Earth) to the immeasurably better place (Heaven). Forever.

5) Which leads to the question: why risk them suffering torture and damnation forever, when they could be immediately put, permanently, into what is currently, and what will always be, a better place?

So essentially it boils down to:

Are there any circumstances where "killing" can translate as "moving to a better place forever"? For an atheist the answer is a resounding "no". Given religious doctrine, can the same be said for a Christian?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Interesting indeed. I've been away from the internet for a few days and have just spent the last few minutes skimming through 11 pages of (mostly) drivel.

Hey, Jakkass's posts aren't that bad :pac:

PDN wrote: »

However, one overarching pattern seems to be emerging. Myself, and other Christian posters, have replied that of course we wouldn't kill our children because we recognise that would be a wrong thing to do.

Which is the over aching point here. Of course you wouldn't kill your children. The problem is why would you not kill your children if you genuinely believe in your own religion, which I suspect deep down on an instinctive level you don't.

Your instinct that it is wrong (because it won't exist any more) overrides your rational acceptance of Christianity. You know it is wrong but you can't give us a rational reason beyond the rather weak "God says so"

God says stealing is wrong, a lot of Christians would steal to protect their children from torture.

God says lying is wrong, a lot of Christians would lie to protect their children from physical suffering.

Why would you not kill your children if you genuinely believed that it would have no negative effects on them, would in fact greatly increase their happiness and safety, and ensure that a rather likely eternity of suffering and pain did not befall them.

All the reasons why you would not kill your children, that they will die and cease to exist no longer apply if you believe they won't actually die and won't actually cease to exist.

PDN wrote: »

Then we have a host of atheist posters who all appear to subscribe to a truly chilling philosophy. They say that it is OK to commit a violent act that would be unthinkable to any moral person (killing your own child), providing that you are doing it because the possibility exists that the child might suffer something even worse down the line (going to hell). Then you try to use your own perverted sense of morality as an argument against Christianity. LOL!

Yes but all of us know why that is wrong, it is because the child ceases to exist.

Except Christianity says he or she doesn't cease to exist at all. It says in fact that they sleep for a second and then wake up in blissful paradise that lasts for eternity (or at least that is how most Christians seem to interpret the death of a child).

So what is your reason for it being wrong?

The excuses have been rather absurd, from saying Well its just wrong cause God says so, to saying that it is wrong to rob the child of the chance to have a good old suffer here on Earth and possibly wind up in hell.

What we have here is the absurdity of the concept of the Christian after-life, a wonderful paradise of perfect happiness and bliss that it is a horrific crime to send your children to

If I believed that killing my children (non-violently, in their sleep) insured that they went to a wonderful place where they would be happy all the time and in a constant state of perfect bliss, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I not?.

The crime in killing a child is that death to most people (and this is ingrained in our most basic instincts) is the end of someone. It is the end of the child. It is not simply a trip to some where wonderful

Except Christianity teaches that it is not.

It teaches this for the comfort of believers who are scared of death themselves, but you guys side step the actual consequences of such a belief because I believe deep down you know that death is actually the end (or at least doubt enough to be not sure) and that killing a child is an actual horrific crime precisely because of this, they no longer exist.

PDN wrote: »

Some of us avoid killing others because we genuinely believe that to be a wrong way for us to behave. I am shocked that so many of you refrain from killing your children only because you don't actually believe that there is a risk of something worse happening to them.

What other reason is there to refrain from killing your children than because they will cease to exist if you do?

PDN wrote: »

What about the risk that your children may develop inoperable cancer in the future? What about the risk that they may be kidnapped and tortured for days by a homicidal sadistic maniac?

If killing them prevented that and sent them to a place of eternal happiness, as Christians claim to believe, I would do it. Of course I would.

PDN wrote: »

At one point do these risks become real enough to you to start living up to the morality you have expressed in this thread and so to start slaughtering your own kids to protect them from those risks?

But we don't believe that would protect them from those things.

You do.

PDN wrote: »

The real laugh is that this thread, apparently intended to attack Christianity, has only served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of so many atheist posters.

The real laugh is that this thread has showed Christians really don't have an answer to this issue. We are a good couple a pages in and not a single Christian has actually addressed the point here. There has been a lot of deflection, a lot of straw manning, but no one has tackled the actual point.

Which I think speaks volumes

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

OK, then, I now know that debating morality with you is meaningless.

Any other atheists prepared to admit this. If you genuinely believed in hell would you kill your children?

Yes. Why not?

The reasons that I wouldn't kill my children is because I believe that they cease to exist if I do.

If I don't believe they cease to exist, if I believe instead they go to a place of eternal happiness that I myself hope one day to get to, and in doing so ensure that they don't end up in hell where they are tortured for eternity, why would I not?

This is the absurdity that this video is pointing out.

All the reasons why we don't kill are children are nullified if Christianity is actually true.

Yet I don't think Christians actually believe it is on a rational level. It is an abstract comfort when they themselves are worrying about death. But they don't rationally consider what it means because we have such strong instincts in our DNA screaming at us that it is wrong to kill people, that they don't simply go some where else better, that they in fact cease to be.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't answer that question.

A question:
Isn't this reminiscent of earlier? Doesn't not being able to answer this make an argument good? (PDN's in this case)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

A question:
Isn't this reminiscent of earlier? Doesn't not being able to answer this make an argument good? (PDN's in this case)

I'm pretty sure Sam could answer why as an atheist he wouldn't kill his children.

PDN's question requires that he place himself in a position he finds utterly illogical and irrational, so it is not particularly surprising he has trouble imagining how he would answer as a Christian. :P

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

A question:
Isn't this reminiscent of earlier? Doesn't not being able to answer this make an argument good? (PDN's in this case)

I as a "moral relativist" atheist can explain exactly why you shouldn't kill your children but but you as a christian with your perfect absolute morality can't, other than the possibility that your supposedly perfectly moral god will punish them for eternity for it

That's pretty fcuking shocking tbh

Sam Vimes

I just realised that yet again Jakkass you missed the point. The question was if I was a christian could I answer it and the answer to that is no. As an atheist it's trivial to answer it

sink

The reason why we all atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, agnostic, ignostic and scietologist alike (well the vast majority), refrain from slaughtering our offspring is the same. It is the same reason why Chimps, Dogs, Cats, Rats, Pigeons, Porcupines and Duck Billed Platypuses refrain from doing the same under normal circumstances. It is due to evolution, we are hard wired to not kill our genetic progeny so our genes can propagate. It's not a concious decision and it is not one any of us made using rational means we are simply following our evolved conscience.

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

The reason why we all atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, agnostic, ignostic and scietologist alike (well the vast majority), refrain from slaughtering our offspring is the same. It is the same reason why Chimps, Dogs, Cats, Rats, Pigeons, Porcupines and Duck Billed Platypuses refrain from doing the same under normal circumstances. It is due to evolution, we are hard wired to not kill our genetic progeny so our genes can propagate. It's not a concious decision and it is not one any of us made using rational means we are simply following our evolved conscience.

Oooohh, Jakkass won't like that. He doesn't see how morality could have evolved.........mostly because he refuses to look at the evidence

sink

Here's an interesting vid related to the the point I made in my previous post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

Whatever rationality we apply to why we don't kill our children, be it atheistic logic or Christian theology, it is applied in retrospect. Our subconscious mind has already made the decision for us and we just have to find a way to justify using the logic of our preferred world outlook.

Turtwig

sink wrote: »

Here's an interesting vid related to the the point I made in my previous post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

Whatever rationality we apply to why we don't kill our children, be it atheistic logic or Christian theology, it is applied in retrospect. Our subconscious mind has already made the decision for us and we just have to find a way to justify using the logic of our preferred world outlook.

Lol!!

Jakkass refused to watch that at least twice already.
Third time's the charm?

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is why would you not kill your children if you genuinely believe in your own religion, which I suspect deep down on an instinctive level you don't.

I agree. I think when it comes to the push and shove, Christians will just dismiss their religious beliefs. Here we have a perfect example of that. Deep down they all know they're a load of nonsense. Except the ones that are completely brainwashed and actually willing to commit suicide or kill.

Ridley

liamw wrote: »

Deep down they all know they're a load of nonsense. Except the ones that are completely brainwashed and actually willing to commit suicide or kill.

I don't agree with that. Same as I don't agree agree with, as R A Salvatore (author) put it: "For me, an atheist is someone crying out for people to prove him wrong."

While I don't believe myself, and certainly have issues with organised religion, I think some people need belief in a deity, or an afterlife to cope.

sink wrote: »

The reason why we all atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, agnostic, ignostic and scietologist alike (well the vast majority), refrain from slaughtering our offspring is the same. It is the same reason why Chimps, Dogs, Cats, Rats, Pigeons, Porcupines and Duck Billed Platypuses refrain from doing the same under normal circumstances. It is due to evolution, we are hard wired to not kill our genetic progeny so our genes can propagate. It's not a concious decision and it is not one any of us made using rational means we are simply following our evolved conscience.

That doesn't account for, say, mothers who don't feel a maternal instinct for their children at all, animals that eat their young, the threat of the law. And creationists...

Other animals aren't faced with the chance of saving their young from eternal damnation of course (in theory ).

sink

Ridley wrote: »

That doesn't account for, say, mothers who don't feel a maternal instinct for their children at all, animals that eat their young, the threat of the law. And creationsists...

Other animals aren't faced with the chance of saving their young from eternal damnation of course (in theory ).

It doesn't have to, evolution by it's very nature results in imperfection, it's an essential part of the process. There has to be some variance for selection to occur. What can't be denied is that persons who do kill their progeny, will not propagate their genes and so their genes will be removed from the gene pool.

MrPudding

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oooohh, Jakkass won't like that. He doesn't see how morality could have evolved.........mostly because he refuses to look at the evidence

Is this like "the evidence is in the museums...?"

Ridley wrote: »

That doesn't account for, say, mothers who don't feel a maternal instinct for their children at all, animals that eat their young, the threat of the law. And creationists...

Well, it does, that's the thing about random mutations... I am sure you would agree that considerable more mother have the maternal instinct than don't. Why do you think that is?

MrP

chozometroid

The obvious answer as to why Christians don't kill their children is that they love them. For those who do believe their toddler would go to heaven if killed, they won't see this as a "can't miss" opportunity. Why? Because they don't want to commit murder, they don't want to offend God, and they don't want to separate themselves from God for eternity.
You guys are silly to think that "it makes sense" to send yourself to hell so someone else can go to heaven. What's the purpose of your self-sacrifice? To make you feel better inside? Are you somehow tipping the scales by insuring less residents in hell?
It's not logical at all.
I have a 5 month-old son, and I plan on being with him in heaven. Why would I want to kill him to "insure" that he goes to heaven? He hasn't lived life, or had the opportunity to learn about Christ, or to help others. There is a lot of work for him to do. For those who say, "but the chances are slim that he'll make it to heaven," I will say that you don't know that, and it's still better to use the life God gave you and go through the process, even if there is a chance you will screw up along the way.
God expects us to care about our own salvation, and that of others. We are doing more wrong than right by killing our children in hopes they get to heaven. We are comitting murder, trying to "cheat" someone into heaven, and exercising judgment over lives that God created.
If all Christians did agree with the strawman version of Christianity in this thread, then they would all kill their children and every other child on the planet, ending the human race in hopes of sending everyone to heaven.

Is this what God wants?

How can we as Christians witness to the man in the alley after we have killed our children?
"Hey brother, Jesus loves you and will forgive you for your past deeds. He wants to come into your life and help you become a better person. By the way, I killed my children so they can go to heaven, and I will gladly kill your's too."
"But I love my children. They 're all I've got."
"It's okay sir, your children will be in a better place."
"But I wanted to see them grow up and make something of themselves."
"Believe me sir, it's better this way. The atheists agree that I should think this way, and they know what they are talking about."
"How about YOU die, you fake Christian!"
"No, don't kill me....I'm accountable for my sins!"

Another, and perhaps the most obvious, reason why Christians shouldn't kill their children is because this is not the example God/Jesus set.
Jesus went around healing the sick and helping others, not handing out "go to heaven free" passes.
There is a depth to our lives you atheists are missing (no surprise there).
Heaven and hell might seem like the only things that should matter to a Christian, but that's a flawed view.

It's like getting a degree in nursing. You learn all this great stuff, take the test, and pass. You've proven yourself and have developed your character in the process. There is more depth to your understanding of life and a more enriched view of the world and other people.
The atheist would say that Mr. Christian should sacrifice his nursing career for his children's careers by cheating them through college and giving them an "honorary" degree, whilst being banned from practice himself.
He will never get to serve in a hospital, but his children have been accepted in. They actually don't know anything about nursing, though, and might not like it, but perhaps they will learn.
It's better than allowing for the possibility that they will fail, though.


One other thing to mention is that this violates free will. By killing your children, you are not allowing them to live their own lives and make their own decisions. You are making their choice for them. It's actually selfish and not something to be respected as the logical thing to do.

I don't believe hell is eternal torture, but even if I did, it's not my place to end my son's life to get him into heaven. That is just wrong. I will let him live his life and be responsible for making his own decisions. If he doesn't make it to heaven, it would still be the better option. Do your children want you to do everything for them (okay, let's leave out newborns)? Should you choose their favorite color, draw for them, ride their bike for them, do their homework, or do any other thing for them that they are able to do themselves?
No, a parent is there for guidance, support, and love.

The atheist-Christian should actually kill their child as soon as it's considered a human (by whatever definition they feel to use). No use looking at it, holding it, or loving it, ......just send it straight to heaven.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

Another, and perhaps the most obvious, reason why Christians shouldn't kill their children is because this is not the example God/Jesus set.

Exodus disagrees with you:

Exodus 12:29 wrote:

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

chozometroid wrote: »

Jesus went around healing the sick and helping others, not handing out "go to heaven free" passes.

The majority of US christians currently believe that to get to heaven, one simply has to "accept Jesus' offer of salvation". That's so easy to do that it's about as close to a get-to-heaven-free pass as you could hope for.

dvpower

chozometroid wrote: »

You guys are silly to think that "it makes sense" to send yourself to hell so someone else can go to heaven. What's the purpose of your self-sacrifice? To make you feel better inside? Are you somehow tipping the scales by insuring less residents in hell?
It's not logical at all.

I don't think anyone here thinks it makes sense (for Christians) to kill their children.

There appears to be some logical case for it (see the video), but the question is "Why do they not do it?".
The fact is that hundreds of millions of Christians do not choose to kill their children so this might point to some flaw in the logic (or the proposition). I think that is what the thread is trying to explore.

If we thought it made sense we might take the question one step further and ask "Why do Christians have children in the first place (just to then go and kill them)?" and the answer to that might lead us to ask "Why don't they have as many children as possible (and immediately kill them)?"

Anyway, we prefer to eat ours:pac:

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

The obvious answer as to why Christians don't kill their children is that they love them.

If you love a child, would you not do anything to protect it? We all instinctively believe that killing is wrong but I believe it's wrong because the victim ceases to exist where you believe that the victim gets instant eternal paradise and I don't quite understand what's so wrong about that. If anything they're better off

chozometroid wrote: »

For those who do believe their toddler would go to heaven if killed, they won't see this as a "can't miss" opportunity. Why? Because they don't want to commit murder, they don't want to offend God, and they don't want to separate themselves from God for eternity.

So it's a selfish thing? They'd rather let their child risk eternal torture than risk it themselves?

chozometroid wrote: »

You guys are silly to think that "it makes sense" to send yourself to hell so someone else can go to heaven. What's the purpose of your self-sacrifice? To make you feel better inside? Are you somehow tipping the scales by insuring less residents in hell?
It's not logical at all.

What you are effectively doing is condemning yourself, accepting the punishment for the sins of your child. Remind you of anyone?

chozometroid wrote: »

I have a 5 month-old son, and I plan on being with him in heaven. Why would I want to kill him to "insure" that he goes to heaven? He hasn't lived life, or had the opportunity to learn about Christ, or to help others. There is a lot of work for him to do. For those who say, "but the chances are slim that he'll make it to heaven," I will say that you don't know that, and it's still better to use the life God gave you and go through the process, even if there is a chance you will screw up along the way.

Eternal torture is a pretty big risk to take, especially when the potential 80 years or so that we're alive is compared to eternity. Why does this life even matter if there's an eternal one after it and why take the risk of losing out on it for such a brief life that you probably won't even remember in ten billion years?

chozometroid wrote: »

God expects us to care about our own salvation, and that of others. We are doing more wrong than right by killing our children in hopes they get to heaven. We are comitting murder, trying to "cheat" someone into heaven, and exercising judgment over lives that God created.

So the reason is "god says so". Right so

chozometroid wrote: »

If all Christians did agree with the strawman version of Christianity in this thread, then they would all kill their children and every other child on the planet, ending the human race in hopes of sending everyone to heaven.

Is this what God wants?

This isn't really about what god wants. He's the one who's put believers in a position where their children are better off dead. You can't threaten people's children with eternal torture and then complain when they try anything in their power to prevent it happening

chozometroid wrote: »

Another, and perhaps the most obvious, reason why Christians shouldn't kill their children is because this is not the example God/Jesus set.

As mentioned above, dying for the sins of others is exactly the example Jesus set

chozometroid wrote: »

It's like getting a degree in nursing. You learn all this great stuff, take the test, and pass. You've proven yourself and have developed your character in the process. There is more depth to your understanding of life and a more enriched view of the world and other people.
The atheist would say that Mr. Christian should sacrifice his nursing career for his children's careers by cheating them through college and giving them an "honorary" degree, whilst being banned from practice himself.
He will never get to serve in a hospital, but his children have been accepted in. They actually don't know anything about nursing, though, and might not like it, but perhaps they will learn.

How can someone not like eternal bliss

chozometroid wrote: »

One other thing to mention is that this violates free will. By killing your children, you are not allowing them to live their own lives and make their own decisions. You are making their choice for them. It's actually selfish and not something to be respected as the logical thing to do.

What violates free will is putting christians in that position in the first place. A choice where one decision gains eternal bliss and the other eternal torture is not a free choice, it's coercion

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

The obvious answer as to why Christians don't kill their children is that they love them. For those who do believe their toddler would go to heaven if killed, they won't see this as a "can't miss" opportunity. Why? Because they don't want to commit murder, they don't want to offend God, and they don't want to separate themselves from God for eternity.

None of those reasons you just listed have anything to do with loving your children.

Not killing your children because you love them implies that you believe something terrible happens to your children if you kill them. For example I would not kill my children, or anyone's children, because I believe if I did they would cease to exist as people.

But your religion teaches that this isn't the case. The most common interpretation seems to be that they go straight to eternal paradise.

So what exactly is the harm done to the children by killing them? How is it loving to not send your children to eternal paradise, and in fact greatly increase the risk that instead of eternal paradise they get to spend eternity in eternal suffering and pain

chozometroid wrote: »

You guys are silly to think that "it makes sense" to send yourself to hell so someone else can go to heaven. What's the purpose of your self-sacrifice? To make you feel better inside?

The purpose of the self-sacrifice is to prevent your children suffering in hell.

If this woman and thrown her kids out of the way of a train while being crushed under neither I imagine most people would comment on how brave she was, not ask did she only do that to make herself feel better inside as if it was some ridiculously selfish act on her part.

chozometroid wrote: »

I have a 5 month-old son, and I plan on being with him in heaven. Why would I want to kill him to "insure" that he goes to heaven? He hasn't lived life, or had the opportunity to learn about Christ, or to help others. There is a lot of work for him to do. For those who say, "but the chances are slim that he'll make it to heaven," I will say that you don't know that, and it's still better to use the life God gave you and go through the process, even if there is a chance you will screw up along the way.

Why is that better? What parent in their right mind would be happy about their children participating in a process that has a high chance that the out come will be eternal pain and suffering for them.

chozometroid wrote: »

We are comitting murder, trying to "cheat" someone into heaven, and exercising judgment over lives that God created.

Isn't Jesus "cheating" people into heaven? After all your religion teaches that we don't deserve to go to heaven, we do so on a technicality that the resurrection canceled the debt that we owed God for sinning against him.

It seems particularly odd then for a Christian who's salvation is dependent on a loop hole to be complaining about someone cheating someone else into heaven.

Surely none of us deserve to be in heaven?

chozometroid wrote: »

How can we as Christians witness to the man in the alley after we have killed our children?

It is interesting that you talk about what the parents want. I want to see my kids grow up. Do you think a parent would want to see their kids grow up more than they would want them to avoid eternal suffering and pain?

Do you think if a parent was asked would you like to see your kids grow up and then have them suffer for eternity or would you like to have your kids taken away from you now but know that they won't suffer, do you think many parents would pick the former? Really?

Imagine a Jewish mother in WW2. The British forces are retreating to the channel. The Nazis are closing fast. She knows what the Nazis do to Jews. She begs a British service man to take the child, take the child back to England with him.

Now, she isn't going to see her child grow up. She is denying her child the chance to experience France. Normally it is totally wrong to just give your child away to a stranger. What if he treats the child badly. What if he slips and drops him on the head?

But anyone here think that this is selfish of her to do this? Of course not. She is terrified of what might happen to the child if he stays and the Nazis come. Now of course nothing might happen to him. Or he may be sent to a concentration camp and suffer and die.

All this Christian nonsense about selfishness on the part of the mother is simply because you guys don't have an actual answer to this issue. It is deflection.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's like getting a degree in nursing. You learn all this great stuff, take the test, and pass. You've proven yourself and have developed your character in the process. There is more depth to your understanding of life and a more enriched view of the world and other people.

How many people would be happy to do a 4 year course in nursing, enrich their lives, and then spend the rest of eternity in a lake of fire?

Do you think that most would say "Nah, I would rather not enrich my life after all?"

Again this comes back to the central issue here. You guys don't actually think hell exists. Not on a real rational level. Hell is a concept that is talked about in your holy book that you superficially accept because it means you get to accept the idea of heaven and salvation and all that other good stuff.

If you actually knew hell exists, rationally believed it to your core and understood that belief the same way you know taxes or New Zeland exists, you would be terrified to your core the way this woman was.

It is like the way you find children and young adults don't know or understand death until it hits them close. Reading that 2 million people have died in Africa is not the same was your grandmother dying, not simply because she was closer to you but because it is forces you to rationally accept death.

You guys don't rationally accept hell. You don't actually believe it is true.

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't believe hell is eternal torture, but even if I did, it's not my place to end my son's life to get him into heaven. That is just wrong.

It is wrong, but it is wrong for reasons you can't explain. And that is the issue here.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you love a child, would you not do anything to protect it? We all instinctively believe that killing is wrong but I believe it's wrong because the victim ceases to exist where you believe that the victim gets instant eternal paradise and I don't quite understand what's so wrong about that. If anything they're better off

I don't believe they get instant eternal paradise. The verdict is still out on this one.

So it's a selfish thing? They'd rather let their child risk eternal torture than risk it themselves?

Well, we actually should care about ourselves. I'm not going to go run in front of a train because it "might" run over someone down the track. Instead I will go down the track and warn people that a train is coming.
Purposively choosing to separate yourself from God to prevent something that you don't know will happen is actually kinda dumb. I would instead choose to "be a man" and raise my kids and be the best parent possible. There is no reason to believe they will fail.

What you are effectively doing is condemning yourself, accepting the punishment for the sins of your child. Remind you of anyone?

No man can pay for the sins of another. We are not acceptable payment.

Eternal torture is a pretty big risk to take, especially when the potential 80 years or so that we're alive is compared to eternity. Why does this life even matter if there's an eternal one after it and why take the risk of losing out on it for such a brief life that you probably won't even remember in ten billion years?

This life does matter, because this is where it begins. And by your logic, I should want to die immediately, and not worry about anyone else, because the eternal paradise completely overshadows this life and I'll forget all this soon enough.
Suicide bomber, anyone?

This isn't really about what god wants. He's the one who's put believers in a position where their children are better off dead. You can't threaten people's children with eternal torture and then complain when they try anything in their power to prevent it happening

No one is being threatened. You're going to die, as expected. I don't believe in eternal torture, so I see hell as the second, final death.
I will admit that this idea of "better off dead" actually does make sense, depending on the situation. The problem is that you just totally miss the point of this life, which is probably why you're an atheist.

As mentioned above, dying for the sins of others is exactly the example Jesus set

Killing your children is not dying for their sins. The equivalent would be Jesus preventing anyone from developing past the age of say....2, then killing them, and then going to hell, never to be seen again.
This just goes back to the "why aren't we in a perfect world?" argument.

How can someone not like eternal bliss

Do you want to spend eternity worshipping God?

What violates free will is putting christians in that position in the first place. A choice where one decision gains eternal bliss and the other eternal torture is not a free choice, it's coercion

Do I violate your free will if you are starving to death and I offer you food?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

It is wrong, but it is wrong for reasons you can't explain. And that is the issue here.

I can't respond to all of your points at the moment, but it seems you either misunderstood points or just ignored the reasons I gave, as expected.

None of those reasons you just listed have anything to do with loving your children.

I wasn't giving reasons that had to do with loving my children. I made one statement: "The obvious answer as to why Christians don't kill their children is that they love them.", followed by other text. I guess you imagined something else.

I all ready said I don't believe hell is eternal torture, btw.

The way you guys don't seem to understand the value of living this life says a lot about the atheist mindset.
We have no right to take our child's life. It belongs to God. They have every right to live their life as we do. How do you know they would agree with your logic? You are taking advantage of the fact that they are naive and helpless. You also don't trust them to live life the right way.

The thread title should be changed to: "If Atheists Were Christians, They Would Kill Their Children!"

sink

chozometroid wrote: »

The thread title should be changed to: "If Atheists Were Christians, They Would Kill Their Children!"

It's ironic that Christians (especially fundamentalist Christians) would argue the exact opposite with added cannibalism. It's like watching a dog bark at it's reflection in a mirror.

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

If you spend the extra 6 minutes watching the video you might have avoided sillyness like this:

Not at all. I have addressed the thread title. If the OP didn't want me to address the thread title then he should have chosen one less procative and more honest such as "Why not waste 6 minutes of your life and then tell me what you think of this video?"

As a rule I don't watch any videos on these boards. I can read text at least four times faster than I can listen to someone talking on a video, so if the OP actually understands a point being made on a video then, if they are reasonably articulate, they should be able to make the point themselves in a post. That way I can read their argument in 90 seconds rather than watch a 6 minute video which, if you happen to live in the country, takes at least 12 minutes to load.

Also, I've yet to see anyone post a video that wasn't a waste of time. For some reason people will post videos that they wouldn't dare to post as text. Then, if anyone does point out inaccuracies in the video, they come out with, "I don't agree with everything in the video, but you must agree it's interesting?" If they don't agree with it, then why flipping post it? Why not just pick out what they do agree with and write it like literate people do? If I want to join the ranks of the illiterate and the educationally subnormal then I'll start commenting in textspeak on Youtube - but until that day I'll continue typing and responding to posts that other (fairly) literate people type.

Is there a chance that you are guity of that which you so often accuse Atheist posters of over on the Christianity forum?

No, I haven't broken the forum charter here.

However, your attempt at deflection is noted. Its becoming increasingly common round here that any time I make a point then people like you, instead of addressing the point, start whinging about the moderating on another forum. It's rather puerile, but I guess you find it easier than admitting you can't answer my questions.

I have honestly answered the question in the thread title. Christians don't kill their children because it's the wrong thing to do. I could expand on why it is the wrong thing to do - but the OP won't permit that as he's expressly requested that there is no discussion of free will.

However only one of you has given a straight answer to my points. That Cerebral Cortex gave a straight answer is to his credit (even if the answer he gave is not to his credit at all).

Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in hell yet none of us know of even one single instance where a sane Christian who believes in hell has killed their child to avoid the risk that they might go to hell.

Yet, in this thread alone, we have a number of atheists (apparently sane) who argue that, if you believe in hell, then killing your children becomes a morally OK act.

This gives rise to several possibilities:

1. They are liars.
2. They are insane.
3. They genuinely would kill their children if they came to believe in hell.

I can certainly understand why you and others have chosen to dance around, attack me personally, whinge about the moderating in another forum, and employ many other strategies to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question. Such equivocation, of course, is supremely hypocritical given that this very thread tries to portray Christans as dodging questions.

So, does anyone other than Cerebral Cortex have the honesty to answer my question?

Are you liars? Are you insane? Or do you genuinely think that, if you came to believe in hell, that you would kill your own children?

Turtwig

*Sigh*

John Locke once defined madness as
"Reasoning correctly from false premises."

1) If my children die before they are old enough to sin they will go to heaven.
2) If my children die after they are old enough to sin they may go to hell.
3) If I kill my children I will go to hell.
4) I love my children more than I love myself; their well being matters more to me than my own.
5) Ergo, I should kill my children to protect them from hell, even though it means I will go there myself.

Of course this is an unsound argument if you believe premises 1-3 are all false. Nonetheless it does seem like a valid argument if premises 1-3 were true, then the conclusion would follow.
Which seems to lead to a problem as it seems that most mainstream Christians would believe that 1-3 are true. So, doesn't that mean that these Christians should kill their children at a young age?
It get's worse. Once you've killed your children you're already dammed to hell so you should actually do your neighbour a favour and kill their children too. That way they don't have to endanger their own souls by killing their own children. In fact, as long as you're going to hell anyway, you should try to kill as many children as possible.
Now ,let's be clear here. I'm not saying that Christians should kill their Children, I'm asking why they don't. I'm looking for answers, not trying to motivate behaviour.
There are least five answers I can come up with, I'm hoping you guys can help me come up with some more.

A) God says though shall not kill.
This is fair enough, but really what do you care about more:
Pleasing God, or saving your Children's souls?

Reject the reality of hell
This is a possible move. One that's at least a step in the right direction.
However, it seems to contradict the majority understanding of hell by various Christian denominations.

C)The odds of the children going to hell are low enough to make the risk worthwhile.
But do you really want to gamble with your children's souls? Moreover, what if you have say ten kids the odds on at least one of them being dammed are significantly higher. So shouldn't you just play it safe and kill all ten in case.

D) Deny Premise 1 : Children can only get into heaven if they accept Jesus as their saviour, which children under the age of conscientiousness cannot do.

Where do these kids go when they die. Would a loving God send them to hell? Purgatory? Limbo? Protestants probably won't like that latter options. Anyways, doesn't the precautionary principle rule here? Shouldn't you just play it safe?

E) My Children are predestined to heaven or hell, so there's nothing I can do to affect the outcome eitherway.

(Too lazy - assumes no Calvinists are lurking out there)

If all the bases have been covered then Christians have no reason NOT to kill their Children.
I think we'd all agree that any belief system that would lead someone to kill their own children is evil. Then what can you say if Christianity can be logically used to do so?

I posted this video looking for a refutation of this argument. And believe it or not I think I got one. Thing is no Christian poster here has yet to even address the actual argument.
So guys, now that I went to the bother of typing it out longhand can ye respond to it?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

*Sigh*
I posted this video looking for a refutation of this argument. And believe it or not I think I got one. Thing is no Christian poster here has yet to even address the actual argument.
So guys, now that I went to the bother of typing it out longhand can ye respond to it?

Gladly.

The guy making the argument seems to be a bit confused as to what motivates Christians. We obey the morals of the New Testament out of our love for God, and because we believe them to be the right thing to do, not out of fear of hell. So let's leave the issue of whether I go to hell or (#3) out of it altogether. That is a needless distraction that could easily have been avoided.

The argument falls flat on it's face because, even though I believe 1, 2 & 4 to be true, 5 does not logically follow.

If simply avoiding hell was the most important thing then I wouldn't have had a child at all. I would have bought myself a puppy and trained it to do exactly what I want when I want. Even better, I would have created a virtual child on a computer programme (remember the Tamagochi electric pets) where free will never entered the equation.

The reason why my wife and I had a child was because we believe in the miracle of life. The most incredible gift that we can give a child is the power to think, to learn, to make choices. If people really thought the way your argument proposes then everyone, Christian or otherwise, would wrap their children up in cotton wool, make them slaves, and ensure that they never participated in any activity where there was the slightest risk of them getting hurt.

I would rather my child had the freedom to make moral choices than that she was a slave unable to make such choices. This remains true, even if she chooses all the wrong things. It is better to be free, even when freedom runs the risk of bad consequences, than not to be free at all. This is why people will run incredible risks and endure great hardships to escape from totalitarian regimes. It's not that they just want a better standardof living - they want to be free!

Christians believe that the greatest gift God ever gave us was the freedom to choose. That is what it means to be made in God's image. To kill a child would be to deny that child the greatest gift of all. It might populate heaven - but it would be a heaven populated with pets that never had a choice, rather than a heaven populated by those who freely chose God. Such a place would IMHO be unworthy of being called heaven at all - you might as well call it a gilded cage.

The originator of the argument admits his argument is unsound. Therefore it would be stupid to use an unsound argument to attack Christians. The only point up for debate is why the argument is unsound.

The scary thing, for me, is that many atheist posters in this thread appear to think that the argument is sound and therefore seem to think it's useful for attacking Christianity and the integrity of Christians. That is why this thread has rebounded badly on your own cause, Malty.

The question I have asked, and which they refuse to answer, is whether they are:
a) Liars (quite possible)
b) Insane (possible, but probably less so)
c) Genuinely thinking that, if one believes in hell, that it makes logical sense to kill your own children (in this case I would advise them to get themselves humanely neutered straight away).

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't believe they get instant eternal paradise. The verdict is still out on this one.

Either the child goes to heaven which means killing them does them no harm and there is a powerful motivation to do it or your god punishes innocent babies for something completely outside of their control which would make him evil and unworthy of our worship. Either option is fine with me

chozometroid wrote: »

Well, we actually should care about ourselves. I'm not going to go run in front of a train because it "might" run over someone down the track. Instead I will go down the track and warn people that a train is coming.

Not really a great example since there is no way to ensure your child is saved other than killing them. If there was I'm sure all parents would do it

chozometroid wrote: »

Purposively choosing to separate yourself from God to prevent something that you don't know will happen is actually kinda dumb. I would instead choose to "be a man" and raise my kids and be the best parent possible. There is no reason to believe they will fail.

Actually there's plenty of reason to believe they'll fail, especially in modern Ireland. And when we bring in the children of non-christians, you are leaving children with people who will almost certainly doom them. How can you live with yourself? It's all well and good to say people are entitled to their beliefs but these people are dooming their children to hell! If they were sexually abusing their children you would have no qualms with them being taken away but abuse of their eternal soul is acceptable

chozometroid wrote: »

No man can pay for the sins of another. We are not acceptable payment.

Actually, according to christian beliefs we'll do just fine, unless you think god punishes innocent babies

chozometroid wrote: »

This life does matter, because this is where it begins. And by your logic, I should want to die immediately, and not worry about anyone else, because the eternal paradise completely overshadows this life and I'll forget all this soon enough.
Suicide bomber, anyone?

Yes that is also a logical conclusion. Well done on spotting one of the most dangerous aspects of religious belief

Although I believe suicide is supposed to be a mortal sin and would keep you out of heaven so it might not work. But maybe it would because belief in Jesus is supposed to be the only requirement

chozometroid wrote: »

No one is being threatened. You're going to die, as expected. I don't believe in eternal torture, so I see hell as the second, final death.

Death is only "expected" because god decided it would be so. He didn't have to allow us to die, he chose to. It is a threat by any definition of the word

chozometroid wrote: »

I will admit that this idea of "better off dead" actually does make sense, depending on the situation. The problem is that you just totally miss the point of this life, which is probably why you're an atheist.

Oh I understand exactly what the point of life is: to live it to it's fullest, I just don't think that the point is to lick god's ass for 80 years and be punished if I don't do it well enough

chozometroid wrote: »

Killing your children is not dying for their sins. The equivalent would be Jesus preventing anyone from developing past the age of say....2, then killing them, and then going to hell, never to be seen again.

The method used to take the burden of their sins is different but the motivation is the same

chozometroid wrote: »

This just goes back to the "why aren't we in a perfect world?" argument.

I don't see how....

chozometroid wrote: »

Do you want to spend eternity worshipping God?

If there is anything in heaven that I don't want, it's not eternal paradise and bliss. I may not want to do it now but I will then because it will cause infinite bliss

Although I never understood why a being would create billions of people so they could worship him and he could punish them if they don't. It's like a giant ant hill owned by an insecure kid

chozometroid wrote: »

Do I violate your free will if you are starving to death and I offer you food?

Well not really because starving to death is not my free choice either. God is the one who created the perilous situation we find ourselves in so a better comparison would be if I locked you up for a few weeks to starve you and then offered you food

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Gladly.

The guy making the argument seems to be a bit confused as to what motivates Christians. We obey the morals of the New Testament out of our love for God, and because we believe them to be the right thing to do, not out of fear of hell. So let's leave the issue of whether I go to hell or (#3) out of it altogether. That is a needless distraction that could easily have been avoided.

But if killing a child gives him instant eternal bliss, why is it wrong?

PDN wrote: »

The argument falls flat on it's face because, even though I believe 1, 2 & 4 to be true, 5 does not logically follow.

If simply avoiding hell was the most important thing then I wouldn't have had a child at all. I would have bought myself a puppy and trained it to do exactly what I want when I want. Even better, I would have created a virtual child on a computer programme (remember the Tamagochi electric pets) where free will never entered the equation.

That's true. The argument for killing your children can also be used for not having them in the first place.

PDN wrote: »

The reason why my wife and I had a child was because we believe in the miracle of life. The most incredible gift that we can give a child is the power to think, to learn, to make choices. If people really thought the way your argument proposes then everyone, Christian or otherwise, would wrap their children up in cotton wool, make them slaves, and ensure that they never participated in any activity where there was the slightest risk of them getting hurt.

This isn't "the slightest risk", this is the risk of eternal damnation for doing something that the vast majority of people in the world do: not follow christianity. All parents curtail the freedom of their children to some extent because if they let the child do whatever they want they wouldn't last a week. This is just one more way to do it that does not harm the child in any way and avoids the significant risk of eternal damnation.

PDN wrote: »

I would rather my child had the freedom to make moral choices than that she was a slave unable to make such choices. This remains true, even if she chooses all the wrong things. It is better to be free, even when freedom runs the risk of bad consequences, than not to be free at all. This is why people will run incredible risks and endure great hardships to escape from totalitarian regimes. It's not that they just want a better standardof living - they want to be free!

You mean like regimes where people have the "choice" to worship someone or burn for eternity? Yeah you're right, people would do anything to escape that.

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that the greatest gift God ever gave us was the freedom to choose. That is what it means to be made in God's image. To kill a child would be to deny that child the greatest gift of all.

Can people not choose in heaven?

Have you never denied your child something they wanted?

PDN wrote: »

The scary thing, for me, is that many atheist posters in this thread appear to think that the argument is sound and therefore seem to think it's useful for attacking Christianity and the integrity of Christians. That is why this thread has rebounded badly on your own cause, Malty.

The question I have asked, and which they refuse to answer, is whether they are:
a) Liars (quite possible)
b) Insane (possible, but probably less so)
c) Genuinely thinking that, if one believes in hell, that it makes logical sense to kill your own children (in this case I would advise them to get themselves humanely neutered straight away).

The thing is that it does make logical sense to kill your children if you believe in hell. That doesn't mean we would do it because evolution has given us a powerful compulsion not to but the fact remains that the teachings of christianity give its followers a powerful motivation to kill all children and really only a selfish motive not to. You can try to turn this around on us all you want by saying we're evil for suggesting that belief in hell makes it logical to kill your children but we're on page 14 and no christian has yet explained why it doesn't. That's what's scary here and what's evil is a god that puts you in a position where you have a powerful motivation to kill your children

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If simply avoiding hell was the most important thing then I wouldn't have had a child at all. I would have bought myself a puppy and trained it to do exactly what I want when I want. Even better, I would have created a virtual child on a computer programme (remember the Tamagochi electric pets) where free will never entered the equation.

That is like saying the greatest gift I can give my child is to let him out on a motor way and let him figure it out. If he doesn't die a horrible death by being hit by a car it will greatly increase his coping skills, something I think it is very important for a child to learn :rolleyes:

The possible development of a children in the short life they have on Earth is countered with eternal suffering in a lake of hell (I appreciate that chozometroid doesn't believe that is what hell is, but it is what this woman believed it was and seems to eb the standard interpretation).

Again people can only make this rather ridiculous argument because they either a) don't accept that is what hell is b) accept it but don't think about what hell actually means or b) don't truly believe hell actually exists in the first place.

I tend to the later for most of you.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Either the child goes to heaven which means killing them does them no harm and there is a powerful motivation to do it or your god punishes innocent babies for something completely outside of their control which would make him evil and unworthy of our worship. Either option is fine with me

And there we have in a nutshell your motive for posting on these boards. You don't actually care whether anything is true or not, you simply want an answer that you can turn to your own purposes. I've suspected this of a number of posters in the past - but you are one of the few that openly admits it.

But if killing a child gives him instant eternal bliss, why is it wrong?

If you have to ask why killing a child is wrong then I feel very very sorry for you. You really are flying your true colours today, aren't you?

The fact that a good consequence might result from a bad action does not make the bad action good.

That's true. The argument for killing your children can also be used for not having them in the first place.

Yes, because both arguments are equally flawed. However, they are different in that you do not have to be morally depraved to see the logic in avoiding having children.

This isn't "the slightest risk", this is the risk of eternal damnation for doing something that the vast majority of people in the world do: not follow christianity.

Your reasoning is either sloppy or dishonest. We're not talking about the vast majority of people in the world. We're talking about the children of Christians - and the majority of them end up becoming Christians themselves.

You mean like regimes where people have the "choice" to worship someone or burn for eternity? Yeah you're right, people would do anything to escape that.

No, I was thinking of regimes where you have no choices, rather than one where you make your own choices and then deal with the consequences of those choices.

Can people not choose in heaven?

We don't know much about what people can do in heaven. I would imagine that our choices are limited, based on freely chosen one-way decisions that we took on earth, but we don't know for sure.

Have you never denied your child something they wanted?

Yes, but unlike you I would never advocate that is logical or desirable to kill a child and deny it the right to become an adult.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
Gladly.

The guy making the argument seems to be a bit confused as to what motivates Christians. We obey the morals of the New Testament out of our love for God, and because we believe them to be the right thing to do, not out of fear of hell. So let's leave the issue of whether I go to hell or (#3) out of it altogether. That is a needless distraction that could easily have been avoided.
But if killing a child gives him instant eternal bliss, why is it wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
The argument falls flat on it's face because, even though I believe 1, 2 & 4 to be true, 5 does not logically follow.

If simply avoiding hell was the most important thing then I wouldn't have had a child at all. I would have bought myself a puppy and trained it to do exactly what I want when I want. Even better, I would have created a virtual child on a computer programme (remember the Tamagochi electric pets) where free will never entered the equation.
That's true. The argument for killing your children can also be used for not having them in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
The reason why my wife and I had a child was because we believe in the miracle of life. The most incredible gift that we can give a child is the power to think, to learn, to make choices. If people really thought the way your argument proposes then everyone, Christian or otherwise, would wrap their children up in cotton wool, make them slaves, and ensure that they never participated in any activity where there was the slightest risk of them getting hurt.
This isn't "the slightest risk", this is the risk of eternal damnation for doing something that the vast majority of people in the world do: not follow christianity. All parents curtail the freedom of their children to some extent because if they let the child do whatever they want they wouldn't last a week. This is just one more way to do it that does not harm the child in any way and avoids the significant risk of eternal damnation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
I would rather my child had the freedom to make moral choices than that she was a slave unable to make such choices. This remains true, even if she chooses all the wrong things. It is better to be free, even when freedom runs the risk of bad consequences, than not to be free at all. This is why people will run incredible risks and endure great hardships to escape from totalitarian regimes. It's not that they just want a better standardof living - they want to be free!
You mean like regimes where people have the "choice" to worship someone or burn for eternity? Yeah you're right, people would do anything to escape that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
Christians believe that the greatest gift God ever gave us was the freedom to choose. That is what it means to be made in God's image. To kill a child would be to deny that child the greatest gift of all.
Can people not choose in heaven?

Have you never denied your child something they wanted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN View Post
The scary thing, for me, is that many atheist posters in this thread appear to think that the argument is sound and therefore seem to think it's useful for attacking Christianity and the integrity of Christians. That is why this thread has rebounded badly on your own cause, Malty.

The question I have asked, and which they refuse to answer, is whether they are:
a) Liars (quite possible)
b) Insane (possible, but probably less so)
c) Genuinely thinking that, if one believes in hell, that it makes logical sense to kill your own children (in this case I would advise them to get themselves humanely neutered straight away).

The thing is that it does make logical sense to kill your children if you believe in hell.

No, that is untrue. It is only logical if you choose to believe that avoiding the risk of your child going to hell (a risk of less than 50% for Christian parents) is more important than allowing your child the opportunity to be a free moral agent. The fact that you give such a low priority to allowing a child to become a free person is truly chilling. I sincerely hope you are never in a position of responsibility for a child or any other person.

That doesn't mean we would do it because evolution has given us a powerful compulsion not to but the fact remains that the teachings of christianity give its followers a powerful motivation to kill all children and really only a selfish motive not to. You can try to turn this around on us all you want by saying we're evil for suggesting that belief in hell makes it logical to kill your children but we're on page 14 and no christian has yet explained why it doesn't.

More falsehoods. I have explained why it is not logical, but unfortunately you value freedom so little that you can't understand my explanation.

That's what's scary here and what's evil is a god that puts you in a position where you have a powerful motivation to kill your children

Total hypocrisy. You're the one who is arguing that it is logical for anyone to kill a child, not me. The way you now try to project your immorality onto others is one of the reasons why atheists get such a bad name.

OK, Cerebral Cortex has said that he would kill his children if he came to believe in hell. Sam Vimes has dodged the question repeatedly but has admitted that he thinks it is logical to kill children if you believe in hell. Any other atheists want to agree with them?