1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Hell versus Everlasting Fire

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by KerimF, May 18, 2021.

  1. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    It is known, almost universally, that Hell is where certain gods are supposed to punish and torture a human who deliberately disobeys their heavenly/divine rules.
    This image should be expected anytime a god is seen much like of a powerful selfish earthly king who has no choice but to punish, in one way or another, whoever, in his kingdom, opposes and disobeys any of his rules. After all, even in the world, known as Free World, disobeying certain rules leads to very bad consequences (the earthly hell ;) ).

    But, my teacher replaced the word ‘Hell’ with ‘Everlasting Fire’ and I agreed with him because it is real even on earth.

    When a human realizes that something is no more good for anything at all, he just throws it into fire (or the like) to return it back to its raw state. He surely does this not to torture it or even to punish it ;)

    Obviously, this process applies on a robot when it is time to put it out of service for good.

    The good news is that this process also applies to those who are created to be human robots. A human robot looks as a selfish human whose natural pleasant sensations which are pre-programmed in his living cells stimulate him and let him accept freely to play his various important roles in life for which he is created/made. His guidance to achieve his priorities in life is his 'personal' natural instincts.

    In other words, returning back to the state of void (the state before one's birth) is actually the worst thing that could happen to a human after his death. Therefore, as you see, there is no reason at all to be worried, from now on, about one’s afterlife.

    Note:
    Please keep this truth in RF only. It is taboo because it shouldn't be heard by the world's multitudes. In fact, the notion of the conventional Hell helps those who are created to play the masters (in any formal ruling system, religious or political, around the world) control better their religious followers much like some fairy tales work with our little kids ;)

    Isn't it a Happy End to all?

    Please don’t thank me; you are my RF friends, after all.
     
  2. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    As expected, there are no replies.

    I understand that when a truth is presented on which all agree, there will be no need for debating.
    But this shouldn’t prevent us teasing each other for fun ;)
     
  3. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    This post seems to be asking us to rethink the mythology of Hell as it has been described in Abrahamic religious culture. You seem to be saying that the imagery of a God/King torturing, for eternity, those who do not follow it's rules is not a rational or reasonable understanding of how God deals with bad people in an assumed afterlife. In fact, you seem to be introducing a new concept that there are no bad people, but rather, those who, in the Abrahamic myth, are destined for Hell, are instead human robots that are merely destined for recycling.
    I don't understand why you are engaging in all these mental gymnastics. If you are going to reject the Abrahamic concept of Hell, why stop there? Why even assume an afterlife?
    As for your simili, that God sending human robots into everlasting fire is akin to our taking out the garbage, I find it quite flawed. First and foremost, there is a difference between disposing of an inanimate object and a sentient, living being.
    When we burn garbage, or melt down and rework things like metals and plastic, it is to transform those inanimate objects, either to reuse or to reduce their bulk. Additionally, only a small fraction of garbage, or things no longer usefull, are even burned or transformed/recycled. This process of burning/melting is not everlasting; it is finite, with the goal of changing the original into something different. Unlike a human being, inanimate objects do not have self-awarenes, there is no moral significance to this transformation process.
    A God submitting a human soul to everlasting fire seems to be quite a different thing. First, it is everlasting; there is no end. There is no transformation from one thing into something else. Human beings sent into everlasting fire implies that the human is aware, for eternity, that they are being burned, that they will feel pain, and that it will never stop. That is torture. That is not disposing of garbage or recycling.
    In your version of Hell, it seems only human robots are destined for eternal fire. Are we all human robots? If not how many other categories/types of humans are there?

    So, in answer to your question, "Hell or Everlasting Fire", I must answer "Neither".
     
  4. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    Hi Mike,

    You are right that my earthly analogy doesn't reflect perfectly the returning back to the state of void after death (my main point). But I am afraid that imperfection can be found in any other analogy while describing what is beyond the time/space realm.

    Now, if you don't mind, I wonder what could be your view about the worst case that could happen to a human after his death.

    Thank you.
     
  5. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    For me, personally, there is nothing after death, and therefore no worst case exists. For me, worst case scenario's might be imagined in the how, when, and why of my death. Regardless, death itself is inevitable and simply a fact of life, so to speak. :)

    As the OP is in science vs religion section, I would be curious as to how you know there is a "beyond" of time/space, as you have worded it, and how you know what is there or what it is like. You seem to be confident that one aspect of a beyond is not the Hell of Abrahamic tradition, or Dante's Inferno.

    In asking for my "view" of the "beyond" also has me curious as to how you would evaluate or judge the validity or accuacy of my view. Perhaps you have first hand experience and it is simply a matter of comparing my answer with what you know to be true. If not that, then it seems you must be evaluating by some other criteria. Curious what that might be.
     
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,484
    Ratings:
    +2,751
    Religion:
    None
    So they took existing religious beliefs and freely changed anything they didn't like the sound of? I mean, that's probably how most religion have developed over the years but I fail to see how that makes it in any way valid or truth. It's just one persons idea of how they'd like things to be.

    (Also, what does any of this have to do with "Science and Religion", which is the topic of this sub-forum?)
     
  7. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    Let me think of a very simple example to show what could be considered as beyond the time/space realm.
    Here is a possible one:
    I hope you found yourself, once in the least, existing in a dream realm while you were in deep sleep and before wake up. (One of my friends told me that he doesn't dream at all, so he has no idea on what dreaming or a dream could be to him!)
    Could someone prove what he lived in a dream to anyone? Of course not, because his dream, besides being strictly personal in his reality, is also beyond the time/space realm :)

    Back to Everlasting Fire, you didn't like the word 'worst' because there is no other case to compare with based on your observations and analyses.

    Anyway, I liked to point out that, at the end, there will be no losers at all; what is given for free is taken for free (no gain, no loss).

    On my side, I had to find out, when I was in my 20's, a logical practical answer of: "Why I was forced to exist in this temporary life?". In other words, for which reason the Will behind my existence (and of all my evolving ancestors since Big Bang) brought me into life as a human?
    If the final answer was 'nothing', I wouldn't have any reason to refuse the opportunity to move and work in USA and end up be another privileged rich American.
     
  8. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    To my knowledge, so I may be wrong:
    Real Science has to be based on one's experiments and logical reasoning.
    Afterlife is supposed to be related to religion.
     
    #8 KerimF, May 24, 2021
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
  9. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    From a scientific standpoint, dreams, or the experience of dreams is not beyond time/space. All thought and mental experience are tied solely to the activity and function of our central nervous system, dreams included. On its face, dreams are clearly not outside of time, as we can experience the elapse of time in the dream, and clearly time passes from the time we fall asleep to when we wake. Dreams are not a separate realm or reality, simply a mental product of our central nervous system.
    And yes, there is no way to prove what one is thinking. If I say I am thinking of a pink Giraffe, but instead, am picturing a blue elephant, there is no way either prove or disprove it. What we can prove is that whatever we think relies solely on the unique and complex neural patterns of our central nervous system. We know from studying brain injury, brain disease, and the effects of drugs and hormones, we can alter and change the workings, function, and mental processes of the central nervous system.
    Even without injury or illness, we know that an individuals mental perception can be affected or influenced by a myriad of factors outside ones self. Environment, education, socialization, optical illusion etc. all effect how we perceive and understand the world. We as individuals are flawed and fallible observers of reality, and must never rely solely on what we individually think or perceive of the world around us in trying to understand reality, or what is real.

    To date, there is no compelling indication that there is a realm outside time/space, and no reason to assume there is one.

    I find it an interesting word choice to say that you were "forced" to exist. Certainly, we have no choice in the matter, but "forced" seems to imply an intent for you, as you are, to have been specifically born. In reality, it is really random chance. Your parents may or may not have wanted to have a baby, but you were conceived. However, the child and adult you might become, is essentially random. You could have been born female, with or without a birth defect, and just as every sibling is different, there were a million different sperm to combine with one egg that would have each made a unique and different person. You weren't necessarily forced to exist, you just happened to exist by the luck of the draw, random chance, at that particular moment in time, that one particular sperm and egg.

    And as such, there is no Will behind your particular existence. You are here by chance, just as all of us are. It is up to us, within the confines of our abilities, what we do with this chance. :)
     
  10. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    Why use the adjective "Real" in conjunction with "Science"? Why are both capitalized?
    As to @HonestJoe 's comment, I think he was pointing out that you did not seem introduce a scientific component in the OP. Hell and Everlasting Fire seem both confined to the realm of religion.
     
  11. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    If I understood well, your point can be summarized as 'a human is not supposed to trust whatever he perceives as being real'. In other words, one's reality is just an illusion.
    I guess this leads us to say that one's life is also about 'nothing' even before the death of his body.
    I am afraid this reminds me how a robot is also supposed not to have its own reality. It, like all other robots, just executes its instructions which are embedded in its structure by its maker... till it is put out of service for good.

    Back to the dream realm, here is what I perceive the main difference (besides being not defined by the notions of time and space):
    In the space/time realm I can decide, at any time, to love/trust someone (by seeing him as a friend) or hate/judge/deceive him (by seeing him as an enemy).
    In my dream realm, my feeling (good or be on guard, if not worse) towards someone reflects my last decision about him when I was in time/space realm.

    By the way, my body is also programmed to 'force' me return back to the space/time realm, every day, after losing all sorts of connections to it, including my will :)
     
  12. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    I am afraid that the word 'science' became, speaking practically, a sort of religion which also has believers having faith. So while a formal theist is supposed to trust whatever the earthly representatives of his supernatural God approve as true and/or real, a believer in science is always ready to trust those who are supposed being the real representatives of the scientific knowledge in whatever they approve as true and/or real.

    For example, Galileo was seen as a blasphemer for trusting his own observations which were contradicting the 'science' in his time. Now things are much worse. Thanks to the very advanced technologies in audio/visual media, serious lies can be spread worldwide in the name of science (by the world's Elite for more money, power... etc.) and almost all people around the world have no choice but to believe them in order to be on the safe side. I personally have nothing against lies (natural products in all times) and every human knows better than me what is good for him to believe or not (or pretend believing or not).

    Back to Hell and Everlasting Fire, while they are both confined to religion, their study and its result are supposed to be seen as being logical and real; starting from robots which are confined to the realm of science :) It is much like solving a problem by using complex numbers (imaginary numbers in algebra) and getting real results (real numbers only).
     
  13. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    No, not exactly. What I am saying is, what we must be aware of is that there are many factors that can influence and affect the way we perceive and think about the world around us. What we know about the world begins with reasoned expectation based on experience. From the moment we are born, we are exploring and leaning about the world around us and building knowledge about the world through repeated experience. Everything that we know is only know with a degree of confidence. When things in the world behave in a consistent way, we develop an expectation that they will continue to behave that way. Of things that behave in multiple ways, it is through repeated experience that we begin to develop a better understanding, a more complete picture of the thing or event. And when we combine our experience with other human observers' experiences, our confidence in our knowledge of the reality of the world around us becomes that much stronger.
    For the majority of us, our senses give us useful and accurate information about the macroscopic world around us, within the limits of each organs capabilities. For example, we can only see a narrow range of electro-magnetic energy waves (light spectrum), we can only hear a specific range of sound waves. Through natural selection, these senses have been improved over millions of years. If they did not provide accurate information about the world around us, it would make it difficult for us to survive.
    That the sun rises and set in a predictable way, that gravity exists and acts in a predictable way, that the physical world around us is real, has been verified and corroborated by billions of observations of human beings over many, many millennia.

    What happens when we have little or no information about something? For some reason, we human beings do not like unknowns. Our brains seem hard wired to build a picture of understanding with whatever little information is at hand. For example, the shape of a small brown object at a distance may appear to be a small animal, but once approached, turns out to be a clump of wood. The better the data, the more thorough the information, the better the conclusions we can draw.

    So, for questions like, "How did the universe begin, or did it always exist?", or "How did life begin on this planet?", we have insufficient data or information. All we can truly say is that we do not know. All we can do is speculate, and continually improve that speculation, based on increase study and understanding of the processes of life and the function of the universe as a whole.
     
  14. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    So, yes, in a manner of speaking, all life are a type of self-replicating organic based robot of varying complexity. And yes, these organic robots (which we human beings are one type) have blueprints that are the DNA of the cell, and depending on the type of organism, they have pre-programmed instructions or responses to external stimuli, as well and behavioral and motivating instructions that enable it to survive and reproduce in the environment to which it is adapted.
    Perhaps your constant reference to human robots is your way of reminding yourself and those to whom you are speaking, that we human beings are not completely free from, or immune from the effects of behavioral instincts that we have inherited from our ancestral lower forms of life. That some of the feelings we have or express are simply, or initially, instinctual.
    We human beings can override or suppress our instinctual impulses, or simply recognize them for what they are and moderate them appropriately, but it is always good to acknowledge they exist and that they exert influence on our behavior.
     
    #14 MikeF, May 25, 2021
    Last edited: May 25, 2021
  15. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    I would disagree with this. Science is neither a religion nor treated like a religion. Science is the pursuit of knowledge of the world with the full understanding that this acquisition of knowledge is conducted by flawed and fallible human observers. This is the beauty and crux of scientific pursuit. It maintains reasoned skepticism and insists that everything is always up for re-evaluation. That the scientific community of a particular period of time may be inured with an inaccurate or incomplete explanation of a phenomenon and are resistant to changing their views speaks to the fallibility of man. That in time, those inaccurate views eventually change in light of growing data and evidence of a different, or more refined explanation, speaks volumes about science and its ability to mitigate the fallibility of the human beings engaged in scientific pursuits. It is this self-correcting mechanism of scientific principles and procedures that makes scientific study superior to any other in developing our understanding the cosmos, of understanding reality.


    And this fits in perfectly with what I have stated above. :)

    This is not only a problem related to scientific topics, but all of human endeavor. For scientific issues, this mostly applies to realms of study that are on the boundaries of our understanding. That hypothesis and preliminary theories get portrayed as fact is not the fault of science, but rather a reflection on the one misrepresenting the information. And unfortunately, for most of us, we cannot attain a post-doctorate in every field of study. We can't be experts in everything and must struggle to find reliable sources for everything we are not expert in, or have a high level of experience in, be it law, medicine, physics, economics, etc.

    I, personally, am not a fan of lies and half-truths used to manipulate individuals and populations in way that are not in their individual or collective best interest. I am much more a fan of getting a the truth and understanding what is real, reality.
     
  16. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    So, from a scientific standpoint, both Hell and Everlasting Fire are imaginary constructs, and as such, there is nothing for science to study. Something has to exist and be observable in some way for science to study it.

    I'm not a math guy, but in general, mathematics is an abstraction that is a useful tool. It is a language, in a way, that can help us understand and describe real things. By the same token, it can also describe imaginary things.

    People throughout history have used all manner of ways to rationalized the imaginary into reality.
     
  17. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    You presented here the definition of the ideal science, not how the scientific communities behave.
    Here is an example to clarify how science is treated like a religion:
    Once I joined a forum which was supposed to be Christian. It turned out to be strictly about the Catholic faith. Since I knew Jesus based on reason not faith, I was advised to leave the forum so I stopped posting in it.
    On the other hand, I joined a scientific group related to electronics and specialized in data communications. I posted a solution (in a practical circuit with all needed files to simulate it) whose existence is supposed impossible (this is what all universities tell their undergraduates). I asked them just to reply with: "No, it is not novel or important even academically" or "Yes, it is new and thank you for sharing it". For instance, I discovered this solution (topology) by chance while working on my MS thesis in 1979 (much like it happened to Archimedes :) ). Could you guess what was their reply? Since you can never guess it, I will let you know it.
    I got an email to inform me that they had to ban me completely because I contacted them from one of the lands whose entire peoples are supposed to be evil. So, in my turn, I let them know that I do understand fully their obedience of the rules and I wished them a Merry Christmas and Happy New Eve (since this happened in the holidays season).
    So whenever I talk to scientific engineers or religious believers who serve some masters, religious or else, I try to remember that their science and their religion are two faces of the same penny. But this image doesn't hold if they are independent. Actually, almost all top scientists in the world are serving (or being supervised by) their political ruling systems. They have to be grouped in specific well-defined groups as most religious believers are supposed to be.

    On my side, I try discovering the hidden truths in stories addressed to the world for my own knowledge only so that I don't see a naive confused person anytime I look at a mirror :)
     
    #17 KerimF, May 25, 2021
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
  18. KerimF

    KerimF Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2021
    Messages:
    419
    Ratings:
    +65
    Religion:
    Student of Jesus
    I am afraid that there are also rules to be observed by the believers of every formal science. So while a certain believer in science sees what I am talking about is scientific, another believer is not supposed to see it the same way.
    On my side, I simply believe in 'my' science (obviously, I call it Real Science :) ). In my science, I also study things and even apply them at work even if they cannot be observable (one can imagine them only); like the notion of 'infinity' (and one of its images is how the everlasting fire is).

    You give me a clue that whoever sees hard to get my logical reasoning (which I apply in my scientific studies) in analyzing certain topics that are supposed to be based strictly on faith, didn't have the chance to be familiar with what we may call mathematical reasoning. For example, if I couldn't agree on the existence of the non-existent geometrical dot (by definition it is dimensionless), Geometry would be for me just a sort of science-fiction based on something not real/observable (as it is defined). In fact, every branch of science has to be based on certain abstract definitions, also on axioms that some of them cannot be proven they are true directly (but they are also accepted because, by applying them, practical useful ideas could be deduced).

    We like it or not, this is how the world is made.

    Since I am a real free independent person (a neutral observer of the world), I have no reason at all to impose any rule on others while I understand fully that non free or non independent persons have to obey and observe certain rules (even apparently) and they, in turn, have to impose them on others (me included) as long they are given the means to do it (unless they are powerful rich masters already).
     
  19. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    No, I have described science as it is, and has been. As I explained, science is conducted by flawed and fallible human beings. That, at any particular moment in time, science as a whole may get a particular thing wrong is to be expected and par for the course. Science works over the long term, not necessarily instant to instant. If you review scientific progress from the time of Aristotle to the present day, you get a clear picture of the self-correcting nature of science and that it is science that provides us with an ever increasing understanding of reality.
    It seems emotion is creeping into your analysis of this topic. You express personal disappointments and frustrations in your own endeavors, and this has colored and clouded your ability to be dispassionate and objective. You are not the only person to be stymied by external forces in their efforts to express their thoughts and discoveries (You have referenced Archimedes). Things may not work out for you personally, but in the long run, our collective scientific knowledge is continually refined and improved through the scientific process.

    When evaluating the value of science, you cannot fixate on individual mistakes and missteps, but instead, you must always base your evaluation on the whole, from our primitive beginnings to the present day.

    The fact that social power structures such as financial interests and political power have an impact on both science and religion does not mean that science and religion are the same. That science and religion are both human endeavors, and the same human failings can impact science and religion in similar ways, does not mean that science and religion are the same.
    The principles, standards, and procedures of science, over time and in the long run, overcome these obstacles in the pursuit of the understanding of reality. Religion is not in the pursuit of understanding reality. The goal of religion is to indoctrinate and spread the tenets of the religion, regardless of the veracity of religious claims and assertions.
     
  20. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    None
    There is no other rule than the accumulation of accurate data and observation, that is repeatable, and reasoned and rational analysis of that data that can explain the data/observation and consistently predict future data points or events.
    As for belief, belief does not come into science. Every data set, statement and postulate can be challenged and reanalyzed at any time. In science, it is not belief, and most certainly not the blind faith of religion, but rather, it is degrees of confidence. Some scientific ideas and principles we have extremely high confidence in, and others, as I have mentioned before, we have less confidence in. As always, we are less confident on those topics that are at the boundary of our understanding and ability to gather data.

    This statement makes no sense at all. Some people are "not supposed to see", or understand, or grasp, a scientific principle or idea? Your use of the phrase "supposed t0" implies you believe that people can be either granted or denied understanding of a particular thing. Who is this giving permission of understanding or withholding it? There is no such thing.

    There is no "my science", "your science", "their science". Science is science.

    Yes, imagination and creativity can play a crucial role in breaking new ground, making new discoveries. However, what we imagine remains speculation and hypothesis until hard data and observation validate the idea.

    You are confusing the useful abstractions of a tool, mathematics, with imaginary constructs of reality. Imagining a different reality does not make it real.

    The fact that we use abstract mathematical constants in our descriptions of natural phenomena does not mean those phenomena are abstract and outside of reality, it only means that we do not yet fully comprehend the phenomena. There is a difference.

    You seem to be saying that you can imagine whatever you want, and you can treat whatever you imagine as being true and real because you are not bound by the principles and procedures of science as scientists are.

    This is silly. You can tell yourself that you are engaging in science, but I am confident that you know that you are not. Creating imaginary constructs that are outside the reach of scientific study is what religion is all about and what human beings have been engaged in since the beginning.

    As a last observation, you are clearly not a neutral observer because you need or want there to be a realm outside of reality that is immune from the scrutiny of science. A truly neutral observer is indifferent to the outcome of an investigation or inquiry. You are not indifferent as you express a desire or goal.
     
Loading...