Even if hell is not eternal in nature.

[danieldemol]

I think better would be to grow out of fear. Fear itself is not bad, because it helps person to understand and can prevent person to hastily to make bad a choice. But, it is not good if it rules. And there is no reason to allow fear to rule.

For example, in the case of fear of hell. I think it would be good to understand that hell itself does nothing.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

In Biblical point of view, it would be reasonable to fear God rather than hell. But, God is good, He doesn’t do anything evil, so I don’t think there is good reason to fear Him, unless maybe if you are evil and do bad things. Even then, if you regret that you have done wrongly, there is forgiveness available. Only case when the hell comes possible for a person is that he is truly unrighteous and wants evil. But, would evil person fear hell? Would it be bad in that case?

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love.
1 John 4:18

There is an old saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The way I understand the saying is that even well meaning people can do harm.

I'd be prepared to go to great lengths to save my daughter from a burning building even though she would most probably asphyxiate before the flame reached her. Can you imagine how far a person would go to safe their child from burning for 50 or 100 or a thousand or a million years?

I suspect that is why we see well intentioned groups such as the Taliban who have carried out extremes of puritanical culture.

They presumably don't want their child to burn for an extended period of time so they cover women in Burqas and block out the windows and forbid women from being public figures - that is what I suspect, that it is all to save their children and themselves from the fear of burning.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Sounds like you are saying that Christianity is irrational.
That's fine, believe that if you want and promote scepticism if you want and as you do.
You may be doing it with good motives...................even if you are wrong.
Nevertheless it is views like your's which could rationally lead to the banning of Christianity or banning of speaking of God's judgement, as has happened in Communist countries.
If the attitude was adopted by those in power it would be the same attitude which say Christians of bygone days persecute those they considered heretics who did not believe the views of the persecutors.
That was wrong of course, which I think you would agree with.
But of course I know you aren't promoting such action but it is just what it could lead to with too many fanatical atheists in power as it did with too many fanatical Christians in power.
Not that you are fanatical but others no doubt are.

I dont promote fanatical atheism. I think that such atheists (and others) as who are fanatical do not believe in the power of truth to triumph over falsehood in the free market of ideas in the abscence of anticompetitive means of allowing bad ideas to flourish such as blasphemy/apostasy laws and their anti-religious counterparts.

Simply put, I would suggest that it is not the belief that a belief is irrational and can lead to fanaticism which would result in it being banned, but rather the lack of confidence in the truth to triumph over falsehood.
In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

It seems as though even if hell is not eternal in nature it still promotes an irrational fear in people and there are plenty of irrational fears that have lead to fanaticism.

Please define what you mean by fanaticism and provide the quantitative study that proves what you say with human population.

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

Please define what you mean by fanaticism and provide the quantitative study that proves what you say with human population.

Thanks.

By fanaticism i mean extremism.

I think to have a study we would have to know which societies believe in what duration of physical hell fire then measure the amount of fanaticism in them.

But in the absence of that knowledge we can still run it as a thought experiment, how far would you be prepared to go to save yourself or your family members from burning for an instant?

Now think about how far you would be prepared to go to save them from 50 or a hundred or a million years of burning.

I think it doesnt take much honest self reflection to realise that the answer to that question is if you truly believe they are going to burn, especially if you believe they are going to burn for ages - then you would be prepared to take some great lengths to prevent them from burning.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

By fanaticism i mean extremism.

I think to have a study we would have to know which societies believe in what duration of physical hell fire then measure the amount of fanaticism in them.

But in the absence of that knowledge we can still run it as a thought experiment, how far would you be prepared to go to save yourself or your family members from burning for an instant.

Now think about how far you would be prepared to go to save them from 50 or a hundred or a million years of burning.

I think it doesnt take much honest self reflection to realise that the answer to that question is if you truly believe they are going to burn, especially if you believe they are going to burn for ages - then you would be prepared to take some great lengths to prevent them from burning.

In my opinion.

Fanaticism/extremism, please provide the quantitative study that proves what you say with human population.

If you dont have that kind of data, its just a cooked up theory to create some kind of argument. So there is no truth in it.

 

[danieldemol]

Fanaticism/extremism, please provide the quantitative study that proves what you say with human population.

If you dont have that kind of data, its just a cooked up theory to create some kind of argument. So there is no truth in it.

Its not demonstrated through observation if there is no data, that doesn't mean there is no truth to it.

I notice you did not engage with the thought experiment, is that because you are afraid of the implications of truthfully answering the question in it?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Its not demonstrated through observation if there is no data, that doesn't mean there is no truth to it.

So you believe something with no proof? You just made a faith statement.

 

[danieldemol]

So you believe something with no proof? You just made a faith statement.

Sure its a faith statement, albeit one based on what I see as the only logical outcome of an honest thought experiment.

I'd even suggest that if you were to honestly ask yourself the same question posed in my thought experiment you would come to have faith in the truth of it too.

In my opinion

 

[Erebus]

It seems as though even if hell is not eternal in nature it still promotes an irrational fear in people and there are plenty of irrational fears that have lead to fanaticism.

Would it not make sense to promote scepticism about irrational fears people have in an effort to undermine them and thus minimise fanaticism?

To clarify im not talking about some sort of spiritual suffering which a person may experience even within there lifetime, I have in mind a literal hellfire which a person will burn or be physically tormented in for ages.

Thoughts?

I have some big problems with the kind of Hell you're talking about here and honestly think humanity would be better off without that belief. This is coming from somebody who is generally inclined to apathy about what people believe, providing their actions are good.

I could accept a temporary, rehabilitative notion of Hell. Perhaps something that makes you confront your wrongdoing until you learn why it was wrong. A slave owner might have to endure the reality of being a slave. A murderer might have to experience the terror of the people they killed and the grief of their families. If the worst you've done is punch somebody in the face, your stay in Hell would be short and relatively easy.

I believe that the concept of eternal Hell (particularly when combined with the idea of a loving God) has allowed people to commit atrocities in the name of saving souls. However, I also question the view that, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions." I think that while it might be possible for that to happen,* it's much more common for people to mask their evil intentions with noble claims. The people who were tortured and executed for witchcraft and heresy were often political targets. The idea that they must confess to save their souls or be executed to protect the souls of others seems like an attempt to make the truth of the matter more palatable.

So would getting rid of the belief in Hell actually do anything to reduce the number of atrocities committed or would it just be replaced by another excuse? I honestly can't say. However, I do believe that the concept of Hell causes undue suffering by its very existence. How many people who have lost loved ones to suicide have had their grief amplified by the idea their loved one is damned? How many children have cried themselves to sleep worrying that they're going to Hell? It's a belief we're better off without in my opinion.



*Without derailing the topic too much, intentions are multifaceted and don't exist in a vacuum. If you torture and kill people in the name of the greater good, can you really be said to have had good intentions in the first place? Your intentions did include torturing and killing people after all.

 

[danieldemol]

However, I also question the view that, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions."

Just to clarify i wasn't saying that.

In my opinion.

 

[Erebus]

Just to clarify i wasn't saying that.

In my opinion.

I wasn't specifically referring to you

The quote is attributed to T.S. Elliot and comes up from time to time during discussions of morality. My intention was to address the idea in a broad sense.

 

[danieldemol]

I believe that the concept of eternal Hell (particularly when combined with the idea of a loving God) has allowed people to commit atrocities in the name of saving souls.

Thanks, now suppose that instead of being eternal hell only lasted for 50,000 years or whatever "ages" is supposed to mean.

Do you think a sufficiently long stay in hell might convince people to commit atrocities in the name of saving souls?

 

[Erebus]

Thanks, now suppose that instead of being eternal hell only lasted for 50,000 years or whatever "ages" is supposed to mean.

Do you think a sufficiently long stay in hell might convince people to commit atrocities in the name of saving souls?

Possibly? This is the problem, I don't know the extent to which that kind of Hell would cause people to commit atrocities or whether it instead serves as justification for atrocities that would have been committed anyway.

If I was forced to pick a yes/no answer, I'd have to go with yes. There are enough people in the world that there's a decent chance at least some of them could be motivated to commit atrocities in order to save souls. I don't think there's a way for me to 100% know that this is true, so consider this my best guess.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I have some big problems with the kind of Hell you're talking about here and honestly think humanity would be better off without that belief. This is coming from somebody who is generally inclined to apathy about what people believe, providing their actions are good.

I could accept a temporary, rehabilitative notion of Hell. Perhaps something that makes you confront your wrongdoing until you learn why it was wrong. A slave owner might have to endure the reality of being a slave. A murderer might have to experience the terror of the people they killed and the grief of their families. If the worst you've done is punch somebody in the face, your stay in Hell would be short and relatively easy.

I believe that the concept of eternal Hell (particularly when combined with the idea of a loving God) has allowed people to commit atrocities in the name of saving souls. However, I also question the view that, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions." I think that while it might be possible for that to happen,* it's much more common for people to mask their evil intentions with noble claims. The people who were tortured and executed for witchcraft and heresy were often political targets. The idea that they must confess to save their souls or be executed to protect the souls of others seems like an attempt to make the truth of the matter more palatable.

So would getting rid of the belief in Hell actually do anything to reduce the number of atrocities committed or would it just be replaced by another excuse? I honestly can't say. However, I do believe that the concept of Hell causes undue suffering by its very existence. How many people who have lost loved ones to suicide have had their grief amplified by the idea their loved one is damned? How many children have cried themselves to sleep worrying that they're going to Hell? It's a belief we're better off without in my opinion.



*Without derailing the topic too much, intentions are multifaceted and don't exist in a vacuum. If you torture and kill people in the name of the greater good, can you really be said to have had good intentions in the first place? Your intentions did include torturing and killing people after all.

Facts. I've seen how hell beliefs harm people - especially those with mental illness. When folks are so fearful that people they care about will be tortured forever, they live in perpetual angst, or act in ways that are harmful. An extreme case that comes to mind was one I read years ago when I was younger.

If I remember right, a man had driven up to a church during sunday school services and shot up the class. He was later arrested, and when asked why he did it, he said that he wanted to send the children to heaven before they passed the age of accountability and save them from torment in hell. I wish I could find that article, but it was decades ago when that happened.

I remember vaguely when I was a child and thinking to myself, "Why don't we just kill kids so they don't turn into adults who will later be sent to hell for their sins?" Then, a few years later on this happened. I had felt disgusted not only with the events that unfolded, but also with myself for allowing such a vile thought to enter my mind, even if I was just a kid trying to work out the logic of hell.

The whole concept needs to be thrown out - baby, bathwater, and everything else that happens to be in that tub, IMO.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When its comes to being tormented, mistreated, abused, etc many people live in hell everyday. To them hell is on earth.

So then what of the idea that, on top of this, they might also then be forced to suffer in the afterlife? Does any of that (suffering during or after this life that can be deemed "hell" as the colloquial concept) support there being a super-nice, loving, benevolent deity out there who has the power to help with the mess?

It honestly pains me to see people make arguments for God in the face of all the crap they are willing to complain about that happens here on the Earth. If God made the world, and this is the world He made, and you think He's the best thing since sliced bread and "can do no wrong" then STOP COMPLAINING. Seriously.

Not that I think you believe in God based on your comments. Just saying theists in general who complain about the happenings on Earth and then claim that "God is good all the time", that He created the Earth, and that this is the Earth He ultimately created need to have their heads examined.

 

[Brian2]

I dont promote fanatical atheism. I think that such atheists (and others) as who are fanatical do not believe in the power of truth to triumph over falsehood in the free market of ideas in the abscence of anticompetitive means of allowing bad ideas to flourish such as blasphemy/apostasy laws and their anti-religious counterparts.

Simply put, I would suggest that it is not the belief that a belief is irrational and can lead to fanaticism which would result in it being banned, but rather the lack of confidence in the truth to triumph over falsehood.
In my opinion.

That sounds right but history shows that there are many who are not willing to wait for truth (or their view of the truth) to triumph over falsehood and so would seek to suppress what they consider to be the falsehoods.
This actually happens all the time in this day and age and in places where freedom of speech is valued. It is an example of the rule of majority opinion about certain ideas and it many things it can be and probably is a good thing. We all want fake news to be stopped no doubt.
Sometimes it is just that what the fake news is can be hard to determine objectively...........depending on the subject.

 

[firedragon]

Sure its a faith statement, albeit one based on what I see as the only logical outcome of an honest thought experiment.

I'd even suggest that if you were to honestly ask yourself the same question posed in my thought experiment you would come to have faith in the truth of it too.

In my opinion

Honestly, what you proposed is a human outcome and can be explored with a study. This kind of thing simply cannot be just assumed with out being a person who personally experienced something. Even then, it could fall into an anecdotal fallacy.

You are simply making all kinds of beliefs of your own about "others".

 

[Shakeel]

Would it not make sense to promote scepticism about irrational fears people have in an effort to undermine them and thus minimise fanaticism?

That's exactly what the world is doing - you included. Ironically it leads to a different kind of fanaticism which opposes anything religious.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It seems as though even if hell is not eternal in nature it still promotes an irrational fear in people and there are plenty of irrational fears that have lead to fanaticism.

Would it not make sense to promote scepticism about irrational fears people have in an effort to undermine them and thus minimise fanaticism?

To clarify im not talking about some sort of spiritual suffering which a person may experience even within there lifetime, I have in mind a literal hellfire which a person will burn or be physically tormented in for ages.

Thoughts?

I think a more useful form of Hell would be a review of how the things I did affected people around me, for better and for worse.

 

[We Never Know]

So then what of the idea that, on top of this, they might also then be forced to suffer in the afterlife? Does any of that (suffering during or after this life that can be deemed "hell" as the colloquial concept) support there being a super-nice, loving, benevolent deity out there who has the power to help with the mess?

It honestly pains me to see people make arguments for God in the face of all the crap they are willing to complain about that happens here on the Earth. If God made the world, and this is the world He made, and you think He's the best thing since sliced bread and "can do no wrong" then STOP COMPLAINING. Seriously.

Not that I think you believe in God based on your comments. Just saying theists in general who complain about the happenings on Earth and then claim that "God is good all the time", that He created the Earth, and that this is the Earth He ultimately created need to have their heads examined.

Have you seen me make arguements for a god? Simply my stating of some people think life on earth is hell is far far from arguing for or believing in a god.