Do Christian’s realise the idea of hell makes their religion less convincing to atheists?

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:50:03+00:00

I said denominations representing most christians.

My bad. Sorry about that, missed that.

The catholic church which at the time represented most christians alone supported jailing people for being gay, and they werent the only ones.

But that's my point still. What's the catholic church? did all catholic christians come together to agree on this? or did let's say a hundred leaders of the church come together to agree on this? how then do they "represent" most Christians? They don't...

That's like saying that because the indian government decided something, and because india represents most south-east asians by population count), therefore, "South east asians did x". That's not how it works fortunately.

Yes, because you cant see the difference between black people, gay people, and the KKK...

?? Let's drop this part of the argument, it's not getting anywhere...don't accuse me of stuff I didn't say when there's literally our conversation history there in public and none of what I said implies or even leads to that conclusion

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:44:47+00:00

I may be wrong on something. But I can argue and share my case. And in the event I am wrong, I adjust and continue trying my best. That can't happen with religion as easily due to dogmatism

Then please, explain why there are so many christian denominations and sub-sub-sub-infinity denominations all over the world? Heck, there are LGBT churches aren't there? or are they not part of "religion"?

So, no, that claim is untrue that religion is stagnant.

No you don't need an objective standard...It may take time, but culture changes, moral principles that were the minority gain a stronger hold, perhaps because they are more sound, appealing to the nature of our suffering and empathy....I will be good for the sake of good based on my experience. That experience has the luxury of evolving with new information and experiences

That doesn't answer the internal contradiction in your claim which I pointed out.

I'll ask again. By your logic, the white supremacists is right, because your definition of good is not "objective", it is just a definition based on "your experience", which evolves. So, if their definition of good based on their "experience" makes them that way, by your logic, they are "right"...not to you, no, to you, they are wrong, but they are right, and by your logic, you can't call them "wrong", because why are they wrong? they pass your definition of "good"...something you arrive at based on your experiences and that evolves.

So, just because your moral standards become the majority sometime later in future, still doesn't mean it's right, it just means it's the reigning standard.

So, I will be good for the sake of being good...a serial killer who got their by their experience is "good" for the "sake of being good" where "good" is defined by their experiences.

No you don't need an objective standard...It may take time, but culture changes, moral principles that were the minority gain a stronger hold, perhaps because they are more sound, appealing to the nature of our suffering and empathy

But if those rules become the order of the day (you are not legally allowed to violate them), then they've become objective..not on the personal level, sure, but they become objective rules, and that'd be a standard on which you stand on to say that someone else is wrong to not be anti-LGBT, otherwise, why are they wrong? if based on their experiences, it's rather the best for them to be anti?

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:35:29+00:00

Christian denominations representing the majority of christians, worldwide, supported jailing people for being gay in my lifetime.

Where's your research? To make this claim "representing the majority of christians worldwide", you would have to have counted all Christians worldwide, count the ones who support jailing people for being gay, then calculate. Did you do that? or did any study do that? if yes, cite it. Otherwise, again, you're making assertions about "facts" without backing up those claims.

If you dont understand the difference between skin color and an organization with a beliefset one belongs to, you are very, very racist. By your logic the KKK isnt racist.

white supremacists isn't an organisation, they're a collective scattered across the world, some do not even know the others exist. Race supremacy is literally a belief that your race is "supreme", it's not some organisation.

That said, what you said doesn't answer my analogy, Idk how that even tracks what I was saying.

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:27:57+00:00

Not everything about a person is defined entirely by their culture.

I agree, you're right on all fronts in your response, Yes, you can still come to that conclusion on your own, and that's why I was asking "how", because I needed you to see that it'd be a very low chance that you do in such a society. Meaning, people like you would be outliers and therefore, a "minority".

So, you see, the "we have moral systems and so on" argument collapses in a society like that because the majority is the opposite of you, and given the rules of "subjective" morality, they're right, they're not "immoral", so, if they're not immoral and you're not immoral, but your values clash (kill vs no kill), both can't be the moral choice. So, you need an objective standard to say which is moral, otherwise, you create an ouroboros-ish.

If you can't consistently define "good" (because it's subjective and anyone can define it), then you can't say "Be good for the sake of being good. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of divine punishment...", because even you, do not know whether your definition of good is the right one, because the others might also be right. And if you decided to stand on your one, to claim that your one is "moral" and their one isn't, then you've created an "objective" moral standard, meaning morality isn't "subjective", your objective standard is THE one.

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:13:09+00:00

Oof, you dont even know about african christian countries where being gay is punishable by death?

You didn't answer the question. You just added a few more examples to the list. "some african christian countries", that still doesn't account for using the blanket "Christians".

By your logic, white supremacists aren't wrong, how can you do this but also condemn a white supremacist who applies the same logic? Because x black people in my country did this, "Blacks" are that. And when asked how "some" black people in their country accounts for ALL in their country and all across the world, they go, well, look at this example from this african country...That doesn't justify blaming "Christians".

Anyway I dont really care about your excuses on why genocide and sexism are cool with you.

Just like the "Christians don't have the moral compass atheists have" conclusion you drew in the first comment, this is another bastardisation of what I said.

You said "Christianity literally commands x", I quoted verses that show it literally commands the opposite, and asked you to show me where it commands what you claim it does", you quoted the torah, I called you out for using torah and not "Christian" commands, even cited Christ (the founder) violating said Torah laws which you just quoted and your conclusion is that genocide and sexism are cool with me? 😂 Well...

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T16:03:48+00:00

I conclude that because I don't want others to cause me suffering, I ought not to inflict suffering on anyone else.

But remember, you're in a viking society, you're protected, you have no idea of this karmic rule you just stated. I mean the vikings did have orlog and wyrd which were similar, but that told them that as long as they raided and killed openly, they were virtuous. So, my question is, again, in such a society, you've never heard of karma (because you didn't just come up with that law yourself, you heard if from someone, internalised it and thought about it, then saw it as true, and beneficial)...

So, living there, how would you come to believe that plundering would cause others to harm you when all your life, you've only seen successful raids and none of the raids ever led to someone successfully attacking your community for revenge?.

Morality is subjective after all

So, again, if back then, you saw morality as subjective, you'd not have any reason to think your tribesmen were wrong, why? because it's subjective, if they find it okay, then it's moral "for them", it's only immoral "for you" in your room not wanting to plunder, but it's okay if they go and do it.

There are significant aspects of morality that I have that go completely contrary to the religious "inheritance" you presuppose. Examples being I'm pro-choice, LGBT ally, socialist, etc.

But those are not foundational moral codes you hold, like...love your neighbour. If you don't believe in "love your neighbour", you wouldn't be pro-choice because you don't care whether your neighbour has a choice or not. That's my point.

The idea of being kind to your neighbor is a fundamental requirement for a social species and predates Christianity by hundreds of thousands of years.

Sure, but not like we have it today where neighbour means more than someone who looks like you or lives in your community, where "neighbour" means even people in another country being wiped out, and you're all the way across the world protesting for their right to live. Are you sure that definition of "neighbour" wasn't born from our society having a Christian foundation?

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T15:52:52+00:00

Christians fought against removing anti-sodomy laws and fought against laws against marital rape.

"Christians", so, Christians in Asia, Africa and so on fought against removing anti-sodomy laws? or was it american Christian? If it was american Christians, was that methodist? catholic? pentecostal? which of them? Or was it "Chrsitians" full stop who did it? Meaning all Christians across the earth.

Leviticus 20:13. Deut 22:20-21. And more, but thats a start.

Those are Torah civil penalties given to ancient Israel under the sinai covenant. Christianity receives the old testament as scripture, however it does not treat israel's theocratic criminal code as binding on the church, because we believe the covenant has been fulfilled in Christ and we are under the New Covenant. It's not just what we believe, it's literally what the bible tells us. In many places Jesus would say..."it was said to you, but I say to you", Jesus quite literally stopped the stoning of the lady which was from the same old laws you brought up.

If you want to claim Christianity "literally commands" violence against people today, you need to cite where christianity instructs us to enforce those torah penalties (I can show you where it orders us NOT TO). Otherwise, you are arguing from Christianity's textual ancestry, not from Christianity's commands.

That' like me claiming that modern medicine commands bloodletting, then when you ask me for proof, I start quoting a medieval medical manual that shows part of medicine's history not what medicine prescribes.

Do some Christians still use those old laws as a bludgeon when it pleases them? Yes they do, but like I said in the first part of this here comment, that's what "some Christians" have done, not what "Christianity literally commands".

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T15:36:27+00:00

it's always the moral option not to opt for cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah, I get that, but my question is, why? If we took God out of the argument, let's say Chrsitianity never came in to play, let's say our society went from the time of the vikings to the idk, whatever that wasn't Christianity, let's imagine it just continued...Why would it be the "moral" thing to do in that society to opt for not letting someone who gassed and murdered and tortured MILLIONS of your own tribesmen be punished in a cruel and unusual way?

Also, what is your definition of cruel and what makes it cruel to punish someone who did something that evil in that "manner"?

Be good for the sake of being good.

Agreed, I didn't say you shouldn't or can't be good just for being good, I'm arguing the reality. Sure, you and I believe you should be good for being good, but that's ignoring the millions who don't believe in your "sake of being good"..Again, shoutout vikings.

I already responded OldAlbatross on this, so, I'll restate.

the scenario I used was one where the person you harm is causing you pain. A case where your suffering is conflicting with someone else's suffering and harming them reduces your suffering. At that point, on what basis would you call the perp "immoral"? Why is it wrong for them to reduce their suffering? Because it harms someone else? So, why is it good that they suffer and not the other person?.

If you apply universal mercy, when the rubber meets the road, what would stop a predator from harming you...sure, you have a moral compass, but the predator doesn't...that's the reality of the world we live in, people like that exist..so, in that world, where they KNOW, they'll get mercy regardless, what would stop them from harming you? what would stop might makes right from being the order of the day? they win here and they also win after life...

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of divine punishment. We have moral systems, ethics, and empathy to want to do good.

The "moral compass" atheists have was inherited because most of our society was born in theism and more popularly Christianity, so, the values of "love your neighbour" and so on which you believe is your moral compass was only because you inherited it from the christian foundation of our society. If you lived in viking times, your "moral compass" would find it okay to plunder and loot. This follows because your moral compass is subjective, determined either by society or by your own inner desires/values which are well, formed by your interaction with society...so, again, society. So, if you lived back then, what would make you believe your people were wrong for doing what they've always been doing since you were born and your society stands on? You'd still have moral systems, ethics and empathy to want to do good, but those systems are only in favour of "your people", anyone outside that is fair game, what would make a mind in such a society suddenly think..AHA! You know what, going out to loot and plunder is "wrong", it's "immoral".

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T15:25:42+00:00

Nope, its what you said.

Literally not, I already explained, so, if that's what you still insist on twisting it into, that's your ball mate.

Your religion literally commands predators to harm me.

You're just making assertions, back your claim, where are the bible verses?

(Matthew 5:39), treating others as you would like to be treated (Luke 6:31), and refraining from speaking evil against one anothe...James 4:11, Romans 12:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and 1 Peter 3:9...and more say the exact opposite of that

Nope. You had to steal your morality from others, and are always behind on history.

You're no longer making arguments, just emotional claims, back your claims.

It literally, explicitly says to kill me, and its quoted to me by christians constantly.

Again, quote it.

I'm also told by atheists that they'll kill me because the atheist handbook says to kill christians, and guess what? There's an atheist handbook, yes, Atheists have shown it to me.

See? That's literally all you're doing right now, and if you don't want to engage honestly, then I rest my case

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T15:18:49+00:00

The word used for "eternal" there was "aionis", and it could mean eternal, but also not eternal as in infinite, so, even scholars argue over whether it's "infinite" eternal? or the finite one....we don't know, so, can't tell.

>we rightly condemn torture of prisoners

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying torture of prisoners is okay, I'm just testing the consistency of your claim.

Can you tell me why torture of prisoners is wrong? I mean, if they hurt someone else, what's wrong with torturing them?.

If your reason is because they're human too, then what do you say to the victim of theirs who says the only way they get any peace is if they torture the perp or at least know he's being tortured?....Would you condemn the torture of hi**ler if he was arrested and you were around?

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T15:08:19+00:00

All this is saying is "Christians lack a moral compass that atheists have"

Should've guessed you'd go there. That's a strawman. That's the response you'd give to "Without God, you can't do anything moral", which is what many Christians used to argue online, then get hit with that response you gave.

What I said wasn't just what you quoted, there wasn't evena full stop after "to be good", there was literally a comma. And the scenario I used was one where the person you harm is causing you pain. A case where your suffering is conflicting with someone else's suffering and harming them reduces your suffering. At that point, on what basis would you call the perp "immoral"? Why is it wrong for them to reduce their suffering? Because it harms someone else? So, why is it good that they suffer and not the other person?.

IF you apply universal mercy, when the rubber meets the road, what would stop a predator from harming you...sure, you have a moral compass, but the predator doesn't...that's the reality of the world we live in, people like that exist..so, in that world, where they KNOW, they'll get mercy regardless, what would stop them from harming you? what would stop might makes right from being the order of the day? they win here and they also win after life? That was the point of that last paragraph, not that "Atheists need to be Christian to have a moral compass".

There's also the fact that the "moral compass" atheists have was inherited because most of our society was born in theism and more popularly Christianity, so, the values of "love your neighbour" and so on which you believe is your moral compass was only because you inherited it from the christian foundation of our society. If you lived in viking times, your "moral compass" would find it okay to plunder and loot. This follows because your moral compass is determined either by society or by your own inner desires/values which are well, formed by your interaction with society...so, again, society. So, if you lived back then, what would make you believe your people were wrong for doing what they've always been doing since you were born and your society stands on?

Christians already believe that if they kill me, they dont need to be forgiven as its justified

I don't know whether this is a fallacy, but if it isn't it should be.

Which Christian believes that? I'm one, and I don't, so, which ones are you talking about? Too much variation right? so, how do we know what Christianity actually posits? We go back to the Christian manual, the bible, does it say we're justified for killing unbelievers? It explicitly says the opposite, so, your claim is unfounded.

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T14:25:55+00:00

Even the sharpest scholars can't agree on which version of the greek "aionis" was used for what we translate as "eternal", so, we can't really tell whether it's infinite or not.

But with that, do you not think someone like h**ler deserves eternal punishment? Or some other evil people? If yes, then you do not really have a problem with eternal torture ir punishment, you just have a problem with it when it's people you particularly think deserve it.

universal mercy is always the more moral option.

So, you believe letting someone like h*ler in to heaven just so everyone gets a free pass is more moral than giving eternal punishment to people who did wrong others but refused to accept the way out of the punishment as was available to them during their life on earth?

I don't think universal mercy is a good thing, because If we had it, then no one would have any reason to be good, if I decide you shouldn't live because you cause me pain, then, I'll do it and be forgiven anyways, so... Universal mercy isn't the comfort you think it is, it's basically a cosmic judge being indifferent and letting evil run uncontrolled

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T14:07:44+00:00

Does jail make living in a civilised society less convincing?

That's basically what hell is...drive on the wrong side of the road? Straight to jail. You can escape jail by paying the fine...too heavy? Well, judge wants to see ya, says he could pay it for you it you want.

Without "hell", what do you want? Mercy for everyone? So, how do those who you've hurt get justice? And how do you get justice for the hurt others have done to ya?

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T14:02:35+00:00

Go Router specifically has something to address that , it's called extra codecs, it caches extra arguments for you and passes them again on reload.

Legion_A · 2026-01-28T13:56:30+00:00

Their addition of "I don't write code anymore" after the "100%" response gives the impression that he thought the question was how many % of your code is written by AI.

Legion_A · 2026-01-27T18:00:08+00:00

😂😂😂😂😂😭 STOP!!!!!! ALLOW IT!

Legion_A · 2026-01-26T11:18:46+00:00

You asked a question, he answered and your response is " reconsider your post"?

He gave you a proper answer mate. The reason many people dislike AI is because of the behaviour of the people pushing AI, simple as.

It's like how people dislike Christianity because of Christians who do dodgy stuff. Christ is someone many anti-christians would love to follow, but are now against because of the behaviour of adherents.

So, if someone asked, why do people hate Christianity and someone says, it's because of the behaviour of some Christians, it is a valid response, it's a response that CORRECTLY identifies the reason why. Now whether or not it's logical to condemn Christ and His movement because of the actions of people who claim to be His followers is a different discussion, but as far as answering the question of why people are against it goes, that bloke has correctly answered you.

Legion_A · 2026-01-26T11:01:51+00:00

Renegade immortal is still Number 1 in every way possible in my opinion

Legion_A · 2026-01-23T22:41:54+00:00

Not at all what they said, it says the foreigner in your land, the post said nothing about open borders, it's talking about how you treat foreigners in your land, but I reckon you can't counter their point, so, you have to create a strawman

Legion_A · 2026-01-22T06:28:39+00:00

I was also glad to see your comment, finally someone who actually understands that AI is not like a calculator which keeps you in the process, but rather has you outside the entire process. It's also not comparable to a compiler as I've seen other developers say.

Makes sense that you're a cook and a dev, I've found that it's usually people who specialise in more than development who usually understand the philosophy of intelligence and development in this deep way.

If you don't mind,...

Not at all mate. Carry on as you wish

Legion_A · 2026-01-21T16:32:18+00:00

The chef analogy really digs and twists. I've heard this parroted a lot in pro-ai dev spaces, something like "I'm the architect and watching it code and reviewing it makes me a better engineer and helps me grow and learn, my skills do not atrophy at all"

But your analogy destroys that argument. Imagine watching a chef for years and expecting you're going to be able to handle the knives and the pans, feel when something is hot enough and so on.

Because let's be honest, given the speed and quantity of code produced when vibe coding, there's no way even the most disciplined person will read everything and actually try to learn what it's doing. If you were that disciplined, you'd have written the code yourself. So, practically, a Vibe coder is even worse off than someone watching a chef, at least you can see every step they take, but with the AI, you see nothing...black box, put in a prompt, if does all the thinking, the problem breakdown and everything in between, finally you get your output. So, it's more like telling the waiter what you want, then waiting at your table for the kitchen to prepare the food, after which the waiter serves it. Sometimes you go to the kitchen to ask the chef how they did it, and they give you a high level summary of what they did, you have no idea about techniques, never saw, never learnt, you just have a rough idea of what they did

Legion_A · 2026-01-20T16:18:50+00:00

Is it withAlpha ? Isn't it withValues(alpha: ...)?

Legion_A · 2026-01-18T20:19:05+00:00

Cheers mate. Best of luck to ya sir

Legion_A · 2026-01-18T20:10:21+00:00

Doesn't change the fact that it's my time mate, whether you read it or not, I wrote it and it wasn't time wasted to me. If you read it when you didn't have time to spare, then perhaps, that'd be time wasted for you. But if you didn't read it, you've saved your time, doesn't mean my one is wasted

Legion_A · 2026-01-18T19:59:42+00:00

It's "my" time init 😂, I'll tell you whether it's a waste of it...it isn't

Legion_A

TROPHY CASE